https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg4n2rdjp6o
Sam Cabral BBC 新闻，华盛顿 2024 年 11 月 10 日
Getty Images 索尼娅·索托马约尔留着一头黑色短卷发，身穿深蓝色夹克，内搭黑色上衣，戴着羽毛状耳环，在访问西班牙期间合影这位 70 岁法官的亲近人士表示，她“身体状况很好”
唐纳德·特朗普警告不要在就职前仓促任命法官，因为接近最高法院大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔的消息人士否认她应该辞职以让位给继任者的建议。
70 岁的索托马约尔大法官是九名法官中年龄第三大的法官，她长期以来一直公开自己患有 1 型糖尿病。
特朗普即将重返白宫，这让焦虑的民主党人更加焦急，他们要求她辞职，以便拜登总统有机会提名更年轻的继任者。
但消息人士告诉美国媒体，索托马约尔大法官不打算去任何地方。
“现在不是失去她在法庭上重要声音的时候，”一位知情人士告诉《华尔街日报》，并补充说她“比我认识的任何人都更照顾自己”。
CNN 的报道说：“她的健康状况很好，法庭现在比以往任何时候都更需要她。”消息人士还告诉 ABC 新闻，她没有辞职的计划。
英国广播公司已联系她征求意见。
参议员伯尼·桑德斯周日向 NBC 的《与媒体见面》节目承认，他听到了“一点”关于要求索托马约尔大法官辞职的传言，但表示要求她辞职的呼声“不合理”。
华盛顿没有民选民主党人要求她辞去终身任命。
美国最高法院的法官是谁？
最高法院如何成为政治战场
这位波多黎各法学家是第一位在最高法院任职的有色人种女性，她的公共日程很繁忙，在口头辩论期间不断提问。
但全国各地的许多自由主义者都记得大法官露丝·巴德·金斯伯格 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) 在特朗普第一任期内于 2020 年去世。
金斯伯格大法官被她的崇拜者称为“RBG”，因胰腺癌并发症去世，享年 87 岁。
在总统大选前 46 天，她的去世和由此导致的最高法院空缺引发了一场政治风暴，并让特朗普有机会第三次任命美国最高法院的终身法官。
特朗普任命了艾米·科尼·巴雷特 (Amy Coney Barrett) 大法官，使最高法院的保守派多数变为六比三。
这个倾向于保守的法院做出了重大决定——从 2022 年废除全国堕胎权到城市如何处理无家可归者问题——这些决定在美国各地都有所体现。
由于特朗普准备在 1 月份接替拜登，一些民主党人和自由派活动人士敦促索托马约尔大法官退休以防万一。
她的辩护人认为这一呼吁是年龄歧视，并辩称她的健康状况得到很好的管理。
距离特朗普就职仅剩两个多月，拜登几乎没有时间提名——参议院也没有时间确认——新大法官。
周日，这位共和党当选总统在社交媒体上发帖称，“在共和党争夺谁将领导新的参议院多数席位时，民主党正试图强行通过他们的法官”。
特朗普可能还有更多机会塑造最高法院。
保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯和塞缪尔·阿利托分别为 76 岁和 74 岁。
如果共和党选择他们的继任者，他将成为自富兰克林·罗斯福以来第一位任命多数大法官进入最高法院的总统。
在他的第一个任期内，特朗普还塑造了司法部门的下级法院，与参议院共和党人合作，在四年内任命了 234 名联邦法官。
最高法院如何成为政治战场
幽灵枪和跨性别护理：美国最高法院面临的重大案件
拜登批评“极端”最高法院推动改革
拜登确实有机会任命凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官，她将于 2022 年接替退休的斯蒂芬·布雷耶大法官。
杰克逊大法官作为第一位进入最高法院的黑人女性创造了历史，但鉴于她和布雷耶大法官都是自由主义者，因此并没有改变其党派构成。
今年 7 月，拜登提出了任期限制和法官道德准则，但随着共和党重新掌权白宫和至少一个国会议院，这一想法预计不会有任何进展。
一些最高法院成员也卷入了道德争议，公众对最高法院的信任度下降。民意调查显示，目前略多于一半的民众不认可该机构的工作。
幽灵枪和跨性别护理：美国最高法院审理的重大案件
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c206zn2gy37o?
Holly Honderich 2024 年 10 月 6 日华盛顿报道
美国最高法院将于周一开始新的九个月任期，审理的重大案件将影响美国生活的方方面面。
去年的重磅任期结束后，最高法院的九名大法官又回来了，他们做出了保护广泛使用的堕胎药或授予前总统唐纳德·特朗普部分免于起诉的裁决。
未来几个月可能会因即将到来的总统选举而引发法律纠纷，这可能会对本应激烈的竞选产生影响。
由于保守派以六比三的多数优势保持优势，最高法院的裁决可能会进一步加剧美国公众的怀疑，根据盖洛普的调查，美国公众对其工作的认可度目前为 43%，接近历史最低水平。
新的一年即将到来，让我们来看看最高法院审理的一些重大案件。
田纳西州的跨性别护理
本学期最受关注的案件可能是 US v Skrmetti，法官将听取拜登政府对共和党支持的未成年人性别护理禁令的质疑。
田纳西州的禁令于 2023 年 7 月生效，禁止对患有性别焦虑症的未成年人进行某些治疗，包括开具任何青春期阻滞剂或激素处方，如果治疗的目的是“使未成年人能够认同或以与未成年人性别不一致的身份生活”或治疗“因未成年人性别与所声称的身份不一致而产生的不适或痛苦”。
BMA 对性别审查持“中立立场”
跨性别男性称性别护理审查令人失望
三个跨性别者的经历：“我躲了这么久”
一群年轻的跨性别者、他们的家人和医疗服务提供者与拜登政府一起挑战美国第六巡回上诉法院维持田纳西州禁令的裁决。
九名最高法院法官将被要求权衡该禁令是否违反了美国宪法第十四修正案，该修正案赋予法律下的平等保护。
该决定可能会在全国范围内产生影响。近年来，已有 20 多个州颁布法律，限制跨性别青年获得定制护理的机会。
这些限制遭到了包括美国医学会和美国儿科学会在内的主要医疗团体的反对。
幽灵枪
在开庭的第二天，最高法院将听取对酒精、烟草、火器和爆炸物管理局 (ATF) 一项关于所谓“幽灵枪”的新法规的质疑，这些枪支大多由家庭套件制成，无法追踪。
Garland v VanDerStok 一案的核心在于 ATF 是否可以像监管商业枪支销售一样监管这些武器，包括序列号和联邦背景调查。
拜登政府于 2022 年首次实施这些限制，但很快被下级法院阻止，该法院站在一群枪支拥有者、枪支权利组织和枪支制造商一边，他们认为 ATF 超越了其权限。
幽灵枪是无法追踪的武器，看起来、感觉和射击都和普通枪一样。
司法部随后提出上诉，将此案提交给该国最高法院。
为什么幽灵枪是美国增长最快的枪支问题
该案可能对美国枪支管制产生重大影响。白宫表示，未登记的武器构成了越来越大的威胁，2021 年刑事调查中发现了 20,000 支疑似幽灵枪，比五年前增加了十倍。
致命枪击案中的武力使用
最高法院还将审理一个案件，以澄清法院如何确定警察是否采取了合理的武力。
第五巡回法院的三名法官小组今年裁定，一名德克萨斯州警察在 2016 年休斯顿的一次交通拦截中开枪打死一名司机时，有理由担心自己的生命安全。
当警官 Roberto Felix Jr 拦下 Ashtian Barnes 时，他开着女友租的车，车上有未付的过路费。Barnes 先生最初停下车并打开了后备箱，但随后开始开车离开。根据行车记录仪的镜头，Felix 警官跳上车，向车内开了两枪。一颗子弹击中了 Barnes 先生的头部，他不治身亡。
巴恩斯先生的母亲贾尼丝·休斯·巴恩斯代表儿子提起诉讼，称对她儿子使用致命武力是不合理的，侵犯了他的第四修正案权利，该权利保护人们免受政府的不合理搜查和扣押。
法官发现，根据第四修正案的“威胁时刻”原则，菲利克斯警官的行为是合理的，该原则询问警官在使用武力时是否处于危险之中。根据这一标准，警官在那一时刻之前的行为不予考虑。
小组中的一位法官帕特里克·希金博坦法官写了一份同意意见，表达了对测试的不满，并询问,请求最高法院介入。
希金博坦法官表示，如果允许他考虑“所有情况”，他会发现该警官侵犯了巴恩斯先生的第四修正案权利。
网络色情的年龄限制
虽然此案的开庭日期尚未确定，但在本学期的某个时候，最高法院法官将考虑成人娱乐业对德克萨斯州一项要求色情网站核实其用户年龄的法律提出的挑战。
该法律要求三分之一内容对未成年人有害的色情网站使用年龄验证措施，以确保所有访问者年龄在 18 岁及以上。
行业声称，它还要求网站发布健康警告，称色情会上瘾、损害发育并增加对儿童剥削的需求。
其他几个美国州，包括阿肯色州、路易斯安那州、蒙大拿州和北卡罗来纳州，也要求某些网站核实访问者的年龄。
代表色情行业的言论自由联盟对该法律提出质疑，称其违反了第一修正案的言论自由保护。
该质疑在联邦地区法院获得成功，但该裁决在上诉中被第五巡回上诉法院推翻。
该裁决可能对第一修正案的保护产生广泛影响，可能会颠覆过去的裁决，该裁决认为成年人的言论自由权大于对未成年人可能造成的伤害。
US Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor ignores pressure to retire - reports
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg4n2rdjp6o
Sam Cabral BBC News, Washington 10 November 2024
Those close to the 70-year-old judge say she is "in great health"Donald Trump has warned against rushed appointments of judges before he is inaugurated as sources close to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor deny suggestions she should step down to allow her replacement.
Justice Sotomayor, 70, is the third-oldest judge on the nine-member bench and has long been public about living her life with type 1 diabetes.
Trump's impending return to the White House is now lending steam to anxious Democrats calling for her to resign so President Joe Biden has the opportunity to nominate a younger replacement.
But sources tell US media that Justice Sotomayor does not plan to go anywhere.
Justice Sotomayor, 70, is the third-oldest judge on the nine-member bench and has long been public about living her life with type 1 diabetes.
Trump's impending return to the White House is now lending steam to anxious Democrats calling for her to resign so President Joe Biden has the opportunity to nominate a younger replacement.
But sources tell US media that Justice Sotomayor does not plan to go anywhere.
"This is no time to lose her important voice on the court," one person told the Wall Street Journal, adding that she "takes better care of herself than anyone I know".
“She’s in great health, and the court needs her now more than ever,” a quote given to CNN reads. Sources also told ABC News she has no plans to resign.
The BBC has reached out for comment.
Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday acknowledged to NBC's Meet the Press that he had heard "a little bit" of talk about Justice Sotomayor being asked to step aside but said calls for her to resign are not "sensible".
No elected Democrats in Washington have called on her to leave her lifetime appointment.
“She’s in great health, and the court needs her now more than ever,” a quote given to CNN reads. Sources also told ABC News she has no plans to resign.
The BBC has reached out for comment.
Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday acknowledged to NBC's Meet the Press that he had heard "a little bit" of talk about Justice Sotomayor being asked to step aside but said calls for her to resign are not "sensible".
No elected Democrats in Washington have called on her to leave her lifetime appointment.
The Puerto Rican jurist, who is the first woman of colour to serve on the court, maintains a busy public schedule and is a persistent questioner during oral argument sessions.
But many liberals around the country remember the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020 during Trump's first term.
Justice Ginsburg, known by her admirers as "RBG", died at age 87 as a result of complications from pancreatic cancer.
Her death and the resulting vacancy on the court just 46 days before a presidential election led to a political firestorm and gave Trump the opportunity to make a third lifetime appointment to the highest court in the US.
Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which shifted the court to a six-to-three conservative majority.
That conservative-leaning court has made major decisions - from the 2022 repeal of the nationwide right to abortion to how cities deal with homelessness - that have been felt across the US.
With Trump poised to take over from Biden in January, some Democrats and liberal activists have urged Justice Sotomayor to retire as a precaution.
Her defenders have dismissed the call as ageist, and argue that her health is well managed.
With just over two months until Trump's inauguration, there is little time for Biden to nominate - and for the Senate to confirm - a new justice.
On Sunday in a social media post, the Republican president-elect said "Democrats are looking to ram through their Judges as the Republicans fight" over who will lead their new Senate majority.
Trump may have further opportunities to shape the Supreme Court.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are 76 and 74 years old, respectively.
If the Republican chooses both their replacements, he would be the first president since Franklin D Roosevelt to have appointed a majority of justices to the court.
In his first term, Trump also moulded lower courts in the judiciary branch, working with Senate Republicans to name 234 federal judges over the four-year period.
Justice Ginsburg, known by her admirers as "RBG", died at age 87 as a result of complications from pancreatic cancer.
Her death and the resulting vacancy on the court just 46 days before a presidential election led to a political firestorm and gave Trump the opportunity to make a third lifetime appointment to the highest court in the US.
Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which shifted the court to a six-to-three conservative majority.
That conservative-leaning court has made major decisions - from the 2022 repeal of the nationwide right to abortion to how cities deal with homelessness - that have been felt across the US.
With Trump poised to take over from Biden in January, some Democrats and liberal activists have urged Justice Sotomayor to retire as a precaution.
Her defenders have dismissed the call as ageist, and argue that her health is well managed.
With just over two months until Trump's inauguration, there is little time for Biden to nominate - and for the Senate to confirm - a new justice.
On Sunday in a social media post, the Republican president-elect said "Democrats are looking to ram through their Judges as the Republicans fight" over who will lead their new Senate majority.
Trump may have further opportunities to shape the Supreme Court.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are 76 and 74 years old, respectively.
If the Republican chooses both their replacements, he would be the first president since Franklin D Roosevelt to have appointed a majority of justices to the court.
In his first term, Trump also moulded lower courts in the judiciary branch, working with Senate Republicans to name 234 federal judges over the four-year period.
Biden did have the opportunity to appoint Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who replaced retiring Justice Stephen Breyer in 2022.
Justice Jackson made history as the first black woman to sit on the top court, but given that both she and Justice Breyer are liberals, it did not change its partisan composition.
This July, Biden proposed term limits and a code of ethics for justices, an idea that is not expected to go anywhere with Republicans back in charge of the White House and at least one chamber of Congress.
Ethics controversies have also embroiled some of the top court's members, and public trust in the Supreme Court has dropped. Polls indicate that slightly more than half of the country currently disapprove of the job done by the institution.
Ghost guns and transgender care: Major cases before US Supreme Court
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c206zn2gy37o?
Holly Honderich in Washington 6 October 2024
Justice Jackson made history as the first black woman to sit on the top court, but given that both she and Justice Breyer are liberals, it did not change its partisan composition.
This July, Biden proposed term limits and a code of ethics for justices, an idea that is not expected to go anywhere with Republicans back in charge of the White House and at least one chamber of Congress.
Ethics controversies have also embroiled some of the top court's members, and public trust in the Supreme Court has dropped. Polls indicate that slightly more than half of the country currently disapprove of the job done by the institution.
Ghost guns and transgender care: Major cases before US Supreme Court
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c206zn2gy37o?
Holly Honderich in Washington 6 October 2024
A new nine-month term begins for the US Supreme Court on Monday with major cases that will shape many aspects of American life.
The court's nine justices are back after last year's blockbuster term, which saw rulings that protected a widely used abortion pill or granting former President Donald Trump partial immunity from prosecution.
The coming months may bring legal disputes over the looming presidential elections, potentially consequential in what should be a closely-fought contest.
With its six-three conservative majority intact, its rulings may fuel further scepticism among the American public whose approval for its work is now at 43%, according to Gallup, a near-record low.
With a new year ahead, here's a look at some of the major cases on its docket.
The court's nine justices are back after last year's blockbuster term, which saw rulings that protected a widely used abortion pill or granting former President Donald Trump partial immunity from prosecution.
The coming months may bring legal disputes over the looming presidential elections, potentially consequential in what should be a closely-fought contest.
With its six-three conservative majority intact, its rulings may fuel further scepticism among the American public whose approval for its work is now at 43%, according to Gallup, a near-record low.
With a new year ahead, here's a look at some of the major cases on its docket.
Transgender care in Tennessee
Perhaps the most high-profile case of the term will be US v Skrmetti, where the justices will hear the Biden administration's challenge to a Republican-backed ban on gender care for minors.
The Tennessee ban, which took effect in July 2023, prohibits certain treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, including the prescription of any puberty blockers or hormones, if the treatment is meant to "enable a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity".
The nine Supreme Court justices will be asked to weigh whether the ban violates the 14th Amendment of the US constitution, which grants equal protection under the law.
The decision could have consequences nationwide. More than 20 states have enacted laws in recent years to restrict access to bespoke care for transgender youth.
The restrictions have been opposed by major medical groups including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The Tennessee ban, which took effect in July 2023, prohibits certain treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, including the prescription of any puberty blockers or hormones, if the treatment is meant to "enable a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity".
- BMA takes 'neutral position' on gender review
- Gender care review disappointing, says trans man
- Three trans journeys: 'I spent so long hiding'
The nine Supreme Court justices will be asked to weigh whether the ban violates the 14th Amendment of the US constitution, which grants equal protection under the law.
The decision could have consequences nationwide. More than 20 states have enacted laws in recent years to restrict access to bespoke care for transgender youth.
The restrictions have been opposed by major medical groups including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Ghost guns
On the second day of its term, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a new regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on so-called "ghost guns", the mostly untraceable firearms made from at-home kits.
The case, Garland v VanDerStok, centres on whether the ATF may regulate these weapons in the same way it regulates commercial gun sales, including serial numbers and federal background checks.
The Biden administration first imposed the restrictions in 2022, but was quickly blocked by a lower court, which sided with a group of firearms owners, gun rights groups and firearms manufacturers who argued the ATF had overstepped its authority.
Ghost guns are untraceable weapons that look, feel and shoot like normal guns.The case, Garland v VanDerStok, centres on whether the ATF may regulate these weapons in the same way it regulates commercial gun sales, including serial numbers and federal background checks.
The Biden administration first imposed the restrictions in 2022, but was quickly blocked by a lower court, which sided with a group of firearms owners, gun rights groups and firearms manufacturers who argued the ATF had overstepped its authority.
The Justice Department then appealed, bringing the case to the country's highest court.
The case could have major implications for US gun control. The White House has said the unregistered weapons pose an increasing threat, with 20,000 suspected ghost guns found during criminal investigations in 2021 - a tenfold increase from five years earlier.
The case could have major implications for US gun control. The White House has said the unregistered weapons pose an increasing threat, with 20,000 suspected ghost guns found during criminal investigations in 2021 - a tenfold increase from five years earlier.
Use of force in lethal shootings
The top court will also hear a case to clarify how courts can determine if a police officer acted with reasonable force.
A three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit ruled this year that a Texas police officer reasonably feared for his life when he shot and killed a driver during a traffic stop in Houston in 2016.
Ashtian Barnes had been driving a vehicle his girlfriend rented, which had unpaid toll fees when officer Roberto Felix Jr stopped him. Mr Barnes initially stopped and opened his boot, but then began to drive away. Officer Felix jumped on to the vehicle and fired two shots into the car, according to dashcam footage. A bullet struck Mr Barnes in the head and he died.
Mr Barnes’s mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, sued on her son’s behalf, arguing the deadly use of force against her son was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
The judges found that Officer Felix had behaved reasonably under the Fourth Amendment's "moment of threat" doctrine, which asks whether the officer had been in danger at the moment he used force. Under this standard, the officer's actions until that moment are not taken into account.
A three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit ruled this year that a Texas police officer reasonably feared for his life when he shot and killed a driver during a traffic stop in Houston in 2016.
Ashtian Barnes had been driving a vehicle his girlfriend rented, which had unpaid toll fees when officer Roberto Felix Jr stopped him. Mr Barnes initially stopped and opened his boot, but then began to drive away. Officer Felix jumped on to the vehicle and fired two shots into the car, according to dashcam footage. A bullet struck Mr Barnes in the head and he died.
Mr Barnes’s mother, Janice Hughes Barnes, sued on her son’s behalf, arguing the deadly use of force against her son was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
The judges found that Officer Felix had behaved reasonably under the Fourth Amendment's "moment of threat" doctrine, which asks whether the officer had been in danger at the moment he used force. Under this standard, the officer's actions until that moment are not taken into account.
One of the justices on the panel, Judge Patrick Higginbotham, wrote a concurring opinion expressing frustration with the test, and asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
If he had been allowed to consider the "totality of circumstances", Judge Higginbotham said, he would have found the officer had violated Mr Barnes's Fourth Amendment rights.
If he had been allowed to consider the "totality of circumstances", Judge Higginbotham said, he would have found the officer had violated Mr Barnes's Fourth Amendment rights.
Age restrictions for online pornography
Though a date on this case has not yet been set, at some point this term the Supreme Court justices will consider a challenge from the adult entertainment industry over a Texas law requiring pornography websites to verify the age of their users.
The law requires porn sites where one-third of their content is harmful to minors to use age-verification measures to ensure all visitors are 18 years of age or older.
It also requires the sites to post health warnings, saying porn is addictive, impairs development and increases the demand for child exploitation - claims the industry disputes.
Several other US states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana and North Carolina, require certain websites to verify the ages of visitors.
The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the porn industry, has challenged the law, saying it violates the First Amendment's free speech protection.
The challenge was successful before a federal district court, but that ruling was overturned on appeal by a Fifth Circuit panel.
The ruling could have broad implications for First Amendment protections, possibly upending past ruling which found the free speech rights of adults outweighed the possible harm to minors.
The law requires porn sites where one-third of their content is harmful to minors to use age-verification measures to ensure all visitors are 18 years of age or older.
It also requires the sites to post health warnings, saying porn is addictive, impairs development and increases the demand for child exploitation - claims the industry disputes.
Several other US states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana and North Carolina, require certain websites to verify the ages of visitors.
The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the porn industry, has challenged the law, saying it violates the First Amendment's free speech protection.
The challenge was successful before a federal district court, but that ruling was overturned on appeal by a Fifth Circuit panel.
The ruling could have broad implications for First Amendment protections, possibly upending past ruling which found the free speech rights of adults outweighed the possible harm to minors.
