Yesterday, in a 6–3 decision in Trump v. CASA, the United States Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a case involving an executive order that purports to eliminate birthright citizenship.
昨天，在特朗普诉卡萨（Trump Casa）的6-3裁决中，美国最高法院支持特朗普政府，涉及一项行政命令，该命令旨在消除出生权公民身份。
Confusingly, the Court’s decision wasn’t about the constitutionality of the birthright-citizenship order. Instead, the case proceeded on the assumption that the order was unconstitutional. The only question for the justices was about remedy: What kind of relief should federal courts provide when a plaintiff successfully challenges a government policy?
令人困惑的是，法院的裁决不是关于生育权利命令的合宪性。取而代之的是，该案的假设是该命令违宪。大法官的唯一问题是关于补救措施：当原告成功挑战政府政策时，联邦法院应提供什么样的救济？
The lower courts had, in several birthright-citizenship cases across the country, entered what are known as “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions. These injunctions prevented the executive order from applying to anyone, anywhere—even if they were not a party to the case. The Trump administration argued that nationwide injunctions were inappropriate and impermissible—injunctions should give relief only to the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, no one else.
在全国各地的几个出生权公民案件中，下级法院都进入了所谓的“普遍”或“全国”禁令。这些禁令阻止了行政命令在任何地方申请任何人，即使他们不是案件的当事方。特朗普政府辩称，全国禁令是不适当的和不允许的 - 侵犯只能使提起诉讼的原告只给予救济。
In a majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and put nationwide injunctions to the torch. That’s a big deal. Not only does it represent a major setback to the states and advocacy groups that brought the lawsuit, it also amounts to a revolution in the remedial practices of the lower federal courts.
最高法院在大法官艾米·康尼·巴雷特（Amy Coney Barrett）的多数意见中支持特朗普政府，并向火炬施加了全国性的禁令。这很重要。它不仅代表了提起诉讼的各州和倡导团体的重大挫折，而且还等同于下级联邦法院的补救措施革命。
Nicholas Bagley: The birthright-citizenship case isn’t really about birthright citizenship
尼古拉斯·巴格利（Nicholas Bagley）：生育权利案件与出生权公民身份无关
But it is not, as the dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have it, “an existential threat to the rule of law.” It won’t even mean the end of sweeping injunctions in the lower federal courts. To the contrary, the opinion suggests that relief tantamount to a nationwide injunction will still be available in many cases—including, in all likelihood, in the birthright-citizenship case itself.
但这不是，因为反对的大法官Ketanji Brown Jackson会拥有“对法治的存在威胁”。这甚至并不意味着在下部联邦法院扫除禁令的终结。相反，这种观点表明，在许多情况下，仍将提供与全国禁令的救济，包括在生育权利案件本身中，包括在内。
Barrett’s opinion for the Court begins and ends with history. In 1789, the first Congress gave the federal courts jurisdiction over “all suits … in equity.” That conferral of authority allowed the courts to grant equitable remedies, one of which is the injunction. But that grant of power was not originally understood to give courts the power to enter injunctions extending beyond the parties to the suit—still less to cover the whole nation.
巴雷特对法院的意见始于历史。1789年，第一届国会对“所有诉讼……公平”授予了联邦法院管辖权。授权的授权允许法院授予公平的补救措施，其中之一就是禁令。但是，最初授予权力的授予是赋予法院进入诉讼各方以外的禁令的权力，但更少的东西可以覆盖整个国家。
Instead, the courts hewed to a more traditional conception of judicial power. They sat to resolve disputes among parties, nothing more. That tradition held sway for more than 200 years. It only started to break down in the late 20th century as courts grew more comfortable with universal relief and became more concerned about executive overreach. By the time President Barack Obama took office, nationwide injunctions had become commonplace.
取而代之的是，法院提出了更传统的司法权力概念。他们坐下来解决政党之间的争议，仅此而已。这种传统持续了200多年。它直到20世纪后期才开始崩溃，因为法院对普遍的救济变得越来越舒适，并更加关注高管过度。到巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）上任时，全国禁令已变得司空见惯。
For Barrett, the novelty was enough on its own to condemn the practice. “The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history,” she wrote. “Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.” The federal courts thus lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions. Period. Full stop.
对于巴雷特来说，新颖性就足以谴责这种做法。她写道：“在我们国家的大部分历史中，普遍的禁令都不明显。”“它缺席18世纪和19世纪的股权实践解决了司法权威问题。”因此，联邦法院缺乏发布全国禁令的权力。时期。全停止。
In my book, that’s a positive development. In 2020 testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, I argued that nationwide injunctions “enable opportunistic behavior by politically motivated litigants and judges, short-circuit a process in which multiple judges address hard legal questions, and inhibit the federal government’s ability to do its work. By inflating the judicial role, they also reinforce the sense that we ought to look to the courts for salvation from our political problems—a view that is difficult to square with basic principles of democratic self-governance.”
在我的书中，这是一个积极的发展。我在2020年对美国参议院司法委员会的证词中，我认为全国范围内的禁令“通过出于政治动机的诉讼人和法官来实现机会主义行为，在该过程中，多个法官多次法律法律问题解决了一个艰难的法律问题，并抑制联邦政府解决其工作能力的能力，使我们能够使我们的诉讼变得越来越挑战 - 我们的诉讼措施 - 我们的诉讼危险，使我们能够使我们的诉讼变得越来越挑战。具有民主自治的基本原则。”
Although the Supreme Court divided along partisan lines, with the liberal justices dissenting, I don’t see this as a partisan issue. (The outrageous illegality and sheer ugliness of President Donald Trump’s executive order that lies underneath this fight may go some distance to explain why the three liberals dissented.) Nationwide injunctions are equal-opportunity offenders, thwarting Republican and Democratic initiatives alike. Today, it’s Trump’s birthright-citizenship order and USAID spending freezes. Yesterday it was mifepristone, the cancellation of student debt, and a COVID-vaccine mandate. Why should one federal judge—perhaps a very extreme judge, on either side—have the power to dictate government policy for the entire country? Good riddance.
尽管最高法院沿党派界线分裂，但自由法官反对，但我并不认为这是党派问题。（唐纳德·特朗普总统在这场战斗之下的行政命令的违法行为和纯粹的丑陋可能会远处解释为什么三个自由主义者持不同意见。今天，这是特朗普的出生权公民命令和美国国际开发署花费冻结。昨天是米非司证，取消学生债务，以及共同疫苗的授权。为什么一位联邦法官（也许在任何一边）也应该是一位非常极端的法官 - 决定整个国家的政府政策的权力？好的谜。
Even as it ended nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court left the door open for other forms of relief that are not nationwide injunctions—but that look a whole lot like them. That’s good news for opponents of the birthright-citizenship order.
即使结束了全国禁令，最高法院仍在全国范围内的其他救济形式开放，但看起来很像他们。对于反对生育权利命令的反对者来说，这是个好消息。
First, Barrett confirmed the equitable principle that the federal courts can award “complete relief” to plaintiffs, even if that relief also incidentally protects third parties. She uses the example of a lawsuit in which “one neighbor sues another for blasting loud music at all hours of the night.” An order that tells the noisy neighbor to stop would also help others on the block. That’s totally okay.
首先，巴雷特证实了公平的原则，即联邦法院可以向原告授予“完全救济”，即使这种救济也偶然地保护了第三方。她以诉讼为例：“一个邻居在夜间的所有时间都起诉另一个邻居来爆炸响亮的音乐。”告诉嘈杂邻居停止的命令也将帮助其他人在街区上。没关系。
Barrett even signals that the principle of complete relief might—might!—support an injunction that applies nationwide. The state plaintiffs, led by New Jersey, argued that they needed the order frozen across the whole country because people are mobile. If someone’s citizenship blinks on and off depending on whether they entered a state that was or wasn’t subject to a judicial injunction, states such as New Jersey would struggle to administer burdensome and confusing rules governing citizenship in their state programs.
巴雷特甚至表明，完全救济的原则可能（可能是！）支持全国适用的禁令。由新泽西州领导的州原告辩称，由于人们是流动的，他们需要在全国范围内冻结的命令。如果某人的公民身份取决于他们是否进入或不受司法禁令的州的状态，新泽西州等州将难以管理繁重的规则，并使在其州计划中公民身份统治公民身份。
The Court didn’t say that the state plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction that covered the whole country. But it didn’t rule it out either. Instead, the Court punted—“we decline to take up these arguments in the first instance”—and told the lower federal courts to resolve the question.
法院没有说国家原告有权颁发覆盖整个国家的禁令。但这也不排除它。取而代之的是，法院打了命题 - “我们拒绝首先提起这些论点”，并告诉下联邦法院解决这个问题。
Second, Barrett clarified that parties who want expansive relief can still file a class action. Not every putative group of plaintiffs will be eligible to form a class: Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, class actions are appropriate (and thus can be “certified”) only when certain conditions are met, including that class members are making very similar legal or factual claims. What’s more, the Court has tightened those restrictions in recent decades.
其次，巴雷特（Barrett）澄清说，想要扩大救济的当事方仍然可以提起集体诉讼。并非每个假定的原告群体都有资格组成一个阶级：根据联邦民事诉讼规则，只有在满足某些条件时，班级诉讼才适当（因此可以“认证”），包括班级成员提出非常相似的法律或事实要求。更重要的是，法院在近几十年来加强了这些限制。
But class actions will be available in a substantial number of cases challenging government action. That’s certainly the case when it comes to the birthright-citizenship order, which harms hundreds of thousands of people in identical ways. The Court has also confirmed recently that class-wide injunctions can be secured even before a class is certified—which is to say, right at the outset of proceedings.
但是集体诉讼将在大量挑战政府行动的案件中进行。当涉及出生权的命令时，肯定是这种情况，这以相同的方式损害了数十万人。法院最近还确认，即使在班级认证之前，也可以确保范围内的禁令，这是在诉讼开始时就可以确保的。
Third, the Supreme Court declined to take up the Trump administration’s request to reconsider rules governing “associational standing.” Those rules allow an association to sue on behalf of all of its members—even if the association has hundreds of thousands of such members. (One of the plaintiffs in the birthright-citizenship case, CASA, has more than 155,000 members.) The persistence of associational standing will give large membership organizations the ability to secure relief that extends very widely—so widely, in fact, that the administration may be left with no practical choice except to put its policy on hold across the whole country.
第三，最高法院拒绝接受特朗普政府的要求，以重新考虑有关“协会地位”的规则。这些规则允许协会代表其所有成员提起诉讼，即使该协会有成千上万此类成员。（《出生权公民案》中的一位原告CASA拥有超过155,000名成员。）协会地位的持久性将使大型会员组织能够确保救济能够得到非常广泛扩展的能力，实际上，除了在整个国家持有政策之外，政府可能没有任何实际选择。
Fourth, and finally, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that nationwide relief would still be available in lawsuits that challenge government action under the Administrative Procedure Act. As I explained for this magazine two years ago, “as nationwide injunctions get a bad odor, ‘universal vacatur’ under the APA is taking its place.” The APA wasn’t at issue in the birthright-citizenship case, but it’s central to the large majority of lawsuits that challenge government policy. If nationwide injunctions are dead, but universal vacatur is alive, then Trump v. CASA will only rarely make a difference on the ground.
第四，最终，最高法院揭开了可能在《行政程序法》下挑战政府行动的诉讼中仍可提供全国救济的可能性。正如我在两年前在这本杂志上解释的那样，“随着全国禁令的气味不好，APA下的'通用vacatur'正在取代。”APA在出生权公民案件中并不是问题，但这对于挑战政府政策的大多数诉讼至关重要。如果全国禁令已死，但普遍的空白还活着，那么特朗普诉卡萨只会很少在实地上有所作为。
All of which is to say that the end of nationwide injunctions is unlikely to usher in a new era of judicial minimalism and restraint. Nor will it massively curtail litigants’ ability to protect their rights. That shouldn’t be surprising. Nationwide injunctions are a symptom of a legal culture that affords judges a central role in American policy making. Without changing that legal culture, and the many different laws and doctrines that underwrite it, any single change—even one as significant as ending nationwide injunctions—will yield only a modest course correction.
所有这些都说，全国禁令的终结不太可能引入司法极简主义和克制的新时代。它也不会大大减少诉讼人保护其权利的能力。这不足为奇。全国性的禁令是法律文化的症状，该法律文化在美国制定中扮演着核心角色。在不改变该法律文化的情况下，以及许多不同的法律和学说，即任何单一的变化（即使在全国范围内结束禁令）重要的任何变化都将仅产生适度的课程校正。
Amanda Frost: The question the Trump administration couldn’t answer about birthright citizenship
阿曼达·弗罗斯特（Amanda Frost）：特朗普政府无法回答关于出生权公民身份的问题
That’s not to diminish the importance of Trump v. CASA. Ending nationwide injunctions will matter in some cases, some of the time. Perhaps most important, the case represents a stark rejection of a conception of the judiciary as a free-roving expositor of federal law. That may, in time, orient judges to a healthier understanding of their (limited) role in our constitutional system.
这并不是要降低特朗普诉卡萨的重要性。在某些情况下，在某些情况下，在全国范围内结束禁令将很重要。也许最重要的是，此案代表了将司法机构作为联邦法律的自由兴奋的外派者的明显拒绝。随着时间的流逝，这可能会使法官更健康地理解其在我们的宪法制度中的作用（有限）。
It would be easy to read Trump v. CASA as a victory for the defenders of the executive order ending birthright citizenship. I think that would be a mistake. On this, I agree with Samuel Bray, the University of Chicago law professor who led the academic attack on universal injunctions and whom Barrett cites in her opinion more than a dozen times: “I do not expect the President’s executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect.”
很容易将特朗普诉Casa作为行政命令的捍卫者的胜利，这很容易结束出生权公民身份。我认为那将是一个错误。在此方面，我同意芝加哥大学法学教授塞缪尔·布雷（Samuel Bray）的观点，他领导了对普遍禁令的学术攻击，而巴雷特（Barrett）在她看来的话题中持有超过十二次：“我不希望总统对出生权公民身份的行政命令生效。”
Why? Because the flagrantly unconstitutional order is a prime candidate for expansive relief that is not a nationwide injunction. Barrett closed her opinion with an instruction that the lower courts “move expeditiously” to rewrite their injunctions while keeping in mind the principle that injunctive relief typically provides plaintiffs with complete relief. That’s one avenue for a broad injunction. She likewise clarified that the Court’s decision would not take effect for 30 days, affording advocacy groups an opportunity to file class actions and seek immediate relief. That’s another.
为什么？因为公然违宪的秩序是非全国禁令的广泛救济的主要候选人。巴雷特（Barrett）的意见结束了她的意见，指示下级法院“迅速采取行动”重写其禁令，同时牢记禁令救济通常会完全救济的原则。那是广泛禁令的途径。她同样澄清说，法院的裁决将在30天内生效，这为倡导团体提供了一个机会，可以提起集体诉讼并立即救济。那是另一个。
It’s remotely possible that the birthright-citizenship order will take effect in some states and will affect some people after those 30 days. But I doubt it. Even if it does, I’d expect the Supreme Court to invalidate it in relatively short order. For all its breadth, Trump v. CASA won’t meaningfully set back the fight to preserve birthright citizenship. It matters much more for what it says about federal judicial power—even if what it says is somewhat ambivalent.
遥不可及的是，有可能在某些州生效的生育权利命令，这30天后会影响某些人。但是我怀疑。即使这样做，我也希望最高法院以相对较短的顺序无效。尽管如此，特朗普诉卡萨（Trumpv。Casa）并没有有意义地摆脱斗争来维护生育权公民身份。对于它对联邦司法权的说法来说，这更重要，即使它说的话有些矛盾。
