上周，俄克拉荷马州出现了“双重困境”。本周，芝加哥出现了车辆扣押。贯穿其中的线索是，尼尔·戈沙尔法官和索尼·索托罗莫法官连续两周联合发声，指出他们眼中政府滥用权力的行为。
Last week, it was double jeopardy in Oklahoma. This week, it’s car seizures in Chicago. The through-line is Justice Neil Gorsuch joining Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the second week in a row to call out what they see as government abuses.
奥巴马和特朗普任命的法官们经常会在某些案件中联手合作，这类案件往往能促成两党共识。
It’s not a new phenomenon for the Obama and Trump appointees to team up in a certain type of case that lends itself to bipartisan agreement.
但在新法院开庭初期，他们与九人合议庭的其他同事明显不同——那些同事尚未表现出对法院拒绝受理的上诉案件同样关注的态度。
But early in the new court term, they continue to distinguish themselves from their colleagues on the nine-member bench who haven’t shown the same interest in drawing attention to these appeals the court refuses to hear.
“我再次鼓励考虑这一问题的法院，确保对州警察权力的尊重不会压倒宪法权利。”索托罗莫法官周一在“奥唐纳诉芝加哥案”中如此写道，该意见由戈沙尔法官联署。在他们看来，芝加哥市的车辆没收方案违反了第五修正案关于未经“公正补偿”不得将私人财产用于公共用途的规定。
“I again encourage courts considering this issue to take care that due deference to state police powers does not eclipse constitutional rights,” Sotomayor wrote Monday in the case of O’Donnell v. Chicago, joined by Gorsuch. The issue, in their view, is that the city’s vehicle forfeiture scheme offends the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without “just compensation.”
据索托罗莫法官的陈述，当司机未缴纳多达两笔停车罚单时，市政府即可扣押车辆。此后，她写道，市政府“可以随心所欲处置车辆，无需承担支付补偿金、抵消未缴罚单债务或向车主返还多余款项的义务，即便车辆因出售获利也是如此。”
Per Sotomayor’s statement, the city takes vehicles when drivers fail to pay as few as two parking tickets — after that, she wrote, the city “can do as it pleases with the vehicle, with no obligation to pay compensation, offset the unpaid ticket debt, or return any surplus to the owner if the vehicle is sold for a profit.”
该陈述出现在法院最新命令清单上，这是一份例行发布的文件，宣布对待诉请愿的最新进展。受理一份请愿需要四分之一的法官同意，而大多数请愿均被驳回且无法官附言评论。正是这种法官在驳回意见中公开发声的做法，使其显得尤为引人注目。
Her statement appeared on the court’s latest order list, which is a routine scheduled document that announces the latest action on pending petitions. It takes four justices to grant review of a petition, and most of them are denied without comment from any of the justices. That’s what makes it notable when justices speak out in connection with denials.
确实，索托马约尔和戈萨奇并未对奥唐奈尔案的驳回表示异议，正如法官们有时在各自的著作中所做的那样。正如她上周在双重危险问题上发表的声明所示，戈萨奇也加入了这一立场，两位法官与同僚一致认为，芝加哥案不值得审理。索托马约尔指出，全国各地的下级法院在该宪法问题上存在分歧，而这种分歧在最高法院介入之前“需要进一步酝酿”。
To be sure, Sotomayor and Gorsuch didn’t dissent from the O’Donnell denial, as justices sometimes do in their separate writings. As was the case with her statement that Gorsuch joined last week on a double jeopardy issue, the duo agreed with their colleagues that the Chicago case didn’t warrant review. Sotomayor noted that the nation’s lower courts are divided on the constitutional issue, and that the split would “benefit from further percolation” before the high court steps in.
因此，该议题可能在未来的案件中再次提交给法官们审理，届时请愿人至少可以指望有两位法官表现出兴趣。他们还需要再得到两位法官的支持才能赢得审查。
So, the subject could return to the justices in a future case, where petitioners can count on at least two justices showing interest. They would need two more to win review.
在奥唐奈尔案（以及许多其他未受到任何法官评论的案件）被驳回的同时，最高法院本届任期内又批准审理了两起备受关注的新上诉。
The denial in the O’Donnell case (and many others that went unremarked upon by any justices) came as the court granted review in two new appeals that will both be closely watched this term.
在《教育公平协会诉蒙哥马利县教育委员会案》中，2023年推翻种族倾向大学招生的法院同意审理对马里兰学区磁性中学的挑战。
In Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, the court that struck down race conscious university admissions in 2023 agreed to consider a challenge to the Maryland district’s magnet middle schools.
挑战者辩称，该学区的抽签制度对被安置在“高绩效、低贫困小学”中的亚裔美国学生来说过于难以进入。学区在反对审查未果时强调，最终的录取决定是随机的，并补充说，甚至“难以想象”抽签制度如何会被有意进行种族歧视。
Challengers argue that the district’s lottery system is too hard to access for Asian American students who are packed in “high-performing, low-poverty elementary schools.”Unsuccessfully opposing review, the district stressed that the ultimate admissions decisions are random, adding that it’s “difficult to even conceptualize” how a lottery-based system could be intentionally racially discriminatory.
法院将在马里兰案中审理的法律问题涉及原告必须证明何种事实，才能表明表面中立的录取政策具有种族歧视性。该答案将具有全国性的影响。
The legal question that the court will consider in the Maryland case involves what plaintiffs must prove to show that a facially neutral admissions policy is racially discriminatory. The answer carries nationwide implications.
最高法院周一受理的另一件新案则询问政府是否可以禁止人们在家酿造酒精。
The other new case taken up by the court on Monday asks whether the government can ban people from making liquor at home.
自一个多世纪以来一直如此，但联邦上诉法院推翻了该限制，这导致司法部请求最高法院介入。值得注意的是，持反对意见的双方 — — 想要在家蒸馏酒的人和业余蒸馏者协会 — — 同意最高法院应审理此案，以便法院能够就此问题作出全国性裁决，而该问题一直导致下级法院意见分歧。
That’s been the case for more than a century, but a federal appeals court struck down the restriction, which led the Justice Department to ask the high court to step in. Notably, the opposing parties — people who want to distill at home and the Hobby Distillers Association — agreed that the justices should review the issue so that the court can provide a nationwide resolution on the matter, which has divided lower courts.
该案（司法部诉麦克纳特案）的法律问题在于，联邦对在特定地点（包括住宅）生产蒸馏酒的禁令是否超出了国会的权力范围。
The legal question in that case, DOJ v. McNutt, is whether the federal prohibition on producing distilled spirits in certain locations, including homes, exceeds congressional power.
法院将在本届会期后期审理两起上诉的口头辩论，裁决预计将在7月前作出。
The court will hear arguments in both appeals later in the term, with rulings expected by July.