尽管上周的中期选举结果对民主党在立法机构和州长职位上是一场巨大胜利，但这并没有改变美国最高法院的格局——而最高法院在第二届特朗普政府的混乱、腐败和灾难方面负有重大责任。
Although last week’s midterm results were a colossal win for Democrats across legislative and gubernatorial offices, it didn’t change the configuration of the U.S. Supreme Court — which has much to answer for when it comes to the chaos, corruption, and carnage of the second Trump administration.
自2024年6月最高法院为总统创设刑事豁免权以来，其6比3的多数派在特朗普所谓的“紧急”救济申请中，有80%判他胜诉——所谓的紧急情况通常是下级法院依据法律和宪法，阻止了特朗普在他想要的时间做他想做的事。
Since it invented criminal immunity for presidents in June of 2024, the court’s 6-3 majority has handed President Trump wins in eighty percent of his so-called “emergency” petitions for relief — the emergency usually being that the lower courts, applying the law and the Constitution, had impeded Trump from doing what he wanted when he wanted.
随着全国准备迎接国会调查，甚至可能对特朗普官员、特朗普家族乃至特朗普本人进行弹劾，最高法院中亲特朗普的多数派正准备再次在两种情况下将手伸向宪法天平。
As the country prepares for congressional investigations and possibly impeachments of Trump officials, the Trump family, and even Trump himself, the court’s Trump-friendly majority is poised again to put its thumb on the constitutional scale in two instances.
首先，如果被要求就涉及国会调查的诉讼进行裁决，最高法院可能会帮助特朗普。民主党的压倒性胜利意味着问责即将到来，但国会能做的有限。国会可以通过立法，但新的众议院和参议院多数派并不具备推翻否决所需的票数。没有共和党的大力支持，参议院民主党人缺乏通过弹劾罢免特朗普或其内阁官员所需的67票。即使他们能够通过新立法来遏制特朗普最恶劣的过度行为，但近两年来，他在违反成文法和藐视法院命令方面几乎毫无顾忌，且不受惩罚。
First, the Supreme Court could help Trump if asked to weigh in on lawsuits involving congressional investigations. The landslide victories for Democrats mean that accountability is coming, but there’s only so much Congress can do. It can pass legislation, but the new House and Senate majorities are not veto-proof. Without substantial Republican support, Senate Democrats lack the 67 votes needed to remove Trump or his Cabinet officials through impeachment. Even if they could pass new legislation to rein in Trump’s worst excesses, for nearly two years now, he has shown little hesitation in violating statutory law while defying court orders with impunity.
国会中的民主党人可以做的，是阻挠他提名的司法和行政分支人选；控制各委员会；通过某些预算协调立法；开展调查、发出传票并举行听证会。国会没有自己的执法机构，因此，如果与特朗普政府结盟的人无视传票，甚至在宣誓后撒谎，就要由司法部来追究国会提交的刑事藐视法庭移送。司法部长托德·布兰奇无疑会继续听命于特朗普，站在无法无天的一边，而不是履行自己的真正职责，维护法治。
What Democrats in Congress can do is block his judicial and executive branch nominees; control committees; pass certain budget reconciliation legislation; conduct investigations, issue subpoenas and hold hearings. Congress doesn’t have its own law enforcement apparatus, so if the individuals aligned with the Trump administration defy subpoenas or even lie under oath, it is up to the Department of Justice to pursue criminal contempt referrals from Congress. Attorney General Todd Blanche will undoubtedly continue to side with lawlessness at Trump’s behest rather than do his actual job by upholding the rule of law.
国会确实有权在联邦法院提起民事藐视法庭诉讼，尽管这条途径既缓慢又费力。2019年，众议院的三个委员会就洗钱和相关立法问题，向特朗普的会计师事务所和金融机构发出了国会传票。特朗普以个人身份提起诉讼，要求阻止这些传票，主张它们违反了分权原则。最高法院以7比2作出裁决，认定国会没有无限权力向在任总统索取私人记录，并指出“如果不对其传票权力加以限制，国会就可能……以牺牲总统为代价来扩张自身权力”。
Congress does have the power to bring civil contempt cases in federal court, although that route is slow and laborious. In 2019, three House of Representatives committees issued congressional subpoenas to Trump’s accounting firm and financial institutions in connection with money laundering and related legislation. Trump sued in his individual capacity to block the subpoenas, arguing that they violated the separation of powers. In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court held that Congress doesn’t have unlimited power to subpoena private records from a sitting president, noting that “without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could … aggrandize itself at the president’s expense.”
这起案件“特朗普诉马扎尔斯案”的裁决，早于最高法院在“特朗普诉美国案”中作出的刑事豁免裁决。在后一案中，多数派大幅扩大了总统权力，宣布某些“核心”权力实际上凌驾于法律之上，而“官方”权限则被推定免受刑事审查，即便被用来犯罪也是如此。此外，在马扎尔斯案中，特朗普甚至没有主张行政特权。
That case, Trump v. Mazars, came down before the court’s criminal immunity ruling in Trump v. U.S., in which the majority vastly expanded presidential power by declaring certain “core” powers effectively above the law, and “official” authority presumptively immune from criminal scrutiny even if employed to commit crimes. In Mazars, moreover, Trump didn’t even assert executive privilege.
综合来看，如果特朗普团队无视甚至阻挠国会的监督工作，而案件又上诉到最高法院，那么多数派很有可能再次援引这些近期判例，作出有利于特朗普的裁决。
Taken together, if Team Trump snubs or even obstructs Congress’s oversight efforts and a case goes to the Supreme Court, there is a real chance that the majority will apply these recent precedents in Trump’s favor once again.
其次，法院实质上正在审理总统能否通过私人党派绕过宪法的问题。特朗普通过行政命令创建了政府效率部，赋予埃隆·马斯克对一系列联邦机构前所未有的权力（宪法赋予国会设立机构的权力，而非总统）。马斯克既未依据宪法第二条获得任命，也未经参议院确认。特朗普的女婿贾里德·库什纳也是如此，他一直在全球奔走，据称以志愿者身份代表美国公众就中东和乌克兰的和平进行谈判。与此同时，他的财富呈指数级增长。
Second, the court is essentially taking up the question of whether presidents can bypass the Constitution through private parties. Trump gave Elon Musk unprecedented authority over a slew of federal agencies through his creation of the Department of Government Efficiency by executive order (Congress has the constitutional authority to create agencies, not presidents). Musk wasn’t appointed under Article II of the Constitution or confirmed by the Senate, either. The same goes for Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has been trotting around the globe purportedly negotiating peace in the Middle East and Ukraine on behalf of the American public on an allegedly volunteer basis. At the same time, he has gotten exponentially richer.
关于政府效率部，诉讼当事人依据《信息自由法》提起诉讼，要求获取有关其组织结构以及访问社会保障管理局等敏感政府系统的基本信息。下级法院裁定，政府效率部不能豁免于《信息自由法》，某些记录必须移交。最高法院以6比3的票数批准了紧急申请，于去年中止了该裁决，并强调法官在涉及行政部门通信时应保持克制。
Regarding DOGE, litigants sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain basic information about its organizational structure and access to sensitive governmental systems, such as the Social Security Administration. The lower court ruled that DOGE was not exempt from FOIA and that certain records must be turned over. On an emergency petition, a 6-3 Supreme Court stayed that ruling last year, emphasizing that judges should exercise restraint when it comes to executive branch communications.
此后，最高法院在本任期内审理了该案的部分内容。如果法院认同特朗普的观点，即不允许对政府效率部的结构、权限和运作进行调查取证，那无疑会纵容未来的总统将政府权力赠予私人行为者而不受监督。若果真如此，国会将不得不紧急采取行动，将马斯克和库什纳之流约束在法治范围内。
The court has since taken up parts of that case this term. If the court agrees with Trump that discovery into DOGE’s structure, authority and operations is not permissible, it would undoubtedly invite future presidents to gift governmental power to private actors without oversight. If that were to happen, Congress would have to act urgently to confine the likes of Musk and Kushner within the rule of law.
对于那些担忧最高法院权力过大的人来说，好消息是新的参议院多数党可以阻止特朗普的另一项提名，正如时任参议院多数党领袖、肯塔基州共和党人米奇·麦康奈尔在2016年对贝拉克·奥巴马总统提名梅里克·加兰所做的那样。
The good news for those concerned about the overbearing power of the Supreme Court is that the new Senate majority can block another Trump nominee, as then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016.
如果民主党在2028年赢得白宫，仅替换两名保守派大法官，就可能使法院的右翼阵营从六名大法官缩减为四名，从而开启一个新的进步时代。宪法将因此变得更好。
If a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, replacing just two conservative justices could flip the right wing of the court from six justices to four, ushering in a new progressive era. The Constitution would be better off for it.
金伯利·韦勒目前是荷兰人文与社会科学高等研究院的主题小组协调员兼研究员，著有《如何阅读宪法——以及为什么》，以及《关于投票你需要知道的事——以及为什么》和《如何像律师一样思考——以及为什么》。
Kimberly Wehle is currently a thematic group coordinator and fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences and author of “How to Read the Constitution — and Why,” as well as “What You Need to Know About Voting — and Why” and “How to Think Like a Lawyer — and Why.“