美政府废除"出生公民权"获最高法有利判决后 美上诉法院出手叫停 智通财经7月24日电，据央视新闻，当地时间7月23日，美国第九巡回上诉法院再次裁定，特朗普总统废 除出生公民权的行政令违宪，并下令在全国范围内暂缓执行该行政令。法院认为，该命令违背宪法第十 四修正案明确赋予的出生公民权。尽管最高法院曾要求下级法院避免全国性禁令，但本案法官指出，为 防止"公民身份在州与州之间不一致"，必须统一适用全国性禁令。华盛顿州等22个原告州主张，若公民 身份依据出生地州份而定，将造成不可逆的法律混乱和财政损失。 ...

美法院再次阻止政府限制出生公民权 智通财经7月11日电，据CCTV国际时讯，美国新罕布什尔州的联邦地区法官7月10日做出裁决，再次阻 止特朗普政府实施其在1月份出台的旨在限制"出生公民权"的行政令。尽管美国最高法院此前裁定联邦 地区法官无权发布全国性禁令来阻止旨在限制"出生公民权"的行政令实施，但此次裁决利用了一个例外 情况，即允许法官在集体诉讼中继续在全国范围内阻止特朗普政府的政策。 ...

当地时间7月10日，美国新罕布什尔州的联邦法官约瑟夫·拉普兰特发布一项禁令，暂时阻止美 国总统特朗普限制"出生公民权"的命令在全国范围内生效。 据悉，拉普兰特发布初步禁令，暂时阻止特朗普的这一命令生效，并将其暂停执行七天，以便政府有时间 提出上诉。 综合自：央视新闻 责编：叶舒筠 校对：高源 版权声明 证券时报各平台所有原创内容，未经书面授权，任何单位及个人不得转载。我社保留追 究相关 行 为主体 法律责任的权利。 转载与合作可联系证券时报小助理，微信ID：SecuritiesTimes 拉普兰特还授予该案件集体诉讼地位。 针对特朗普政府试图通过行政令来限制"出生公民权"引发的诉讼，美国最高法院6月27日作出有利于特朗 普政府的裁定，表示联邦地区法官无权发布全国性禁令来阻止该措施实施，同时下令阻止该政策的下级法 院重新考虑命令范围。美最高法院表示，全国性禁令"可能超出了国会赋予联邦地区法院的权力"。 "出生公民权"政策在美国已有100多年历史，保证在美国出生的所有人都享有公民身份，无论其父母身份 如何。 特朗普今年1月20日上任首日签署废除"出生公民权"行政令，规定父母非美国公民或合法永久居民的新生 儿不能自 ...

Group 1 - A federal judge in Concord, New Hampshire, Joseph Laplante, has issued a ruling to block the Trump administration's executive order aimed at limiting "birthright citizenship" [1] - The ruling utilizes an exception from a previous Supreme Court decision, allowing judges to continue blocking the administration's policies in nationwide class-action lawsuits [1] - The judge expressed concerns that revoking birthright citizenship would cause irreparable harm to affected individuals [1] Group 2 - The "birthright citizenship" policy has been in place for over 100 years, ensuring that all individuals born in the U.S. are granted citizenship regardless of their parents' status [2] - The executive order signed by Trump on January 20 aims to eliminate automatic citizenship for newborns of non-citizen or non-permanent resident parents, leading to multiple legal challenges [2] - Federal district courts in states like Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts have issued nationwide injunctions against the executive order, prompting the Trump administration to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the matter [2]

据新华社，美国最高法院27日就总统特朗普试图广泛执行其限制"出生公民权"的行政令作 出裁决，裁定单个法官不能阻止总统命令在全国范围内生效。这意味着，关于"出生公民 权"的限制可以开始执行。 美国最高法院三位自由派大法官对此裁决表示异议。大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔称特朗普政 府的措施"公然违宪""操弄显而易见"。同时，美国移民团体表示失望与不满，称此举将带 来"混乱、不平等和恐惧"。 特朗普政府对最高法院的裁决表示欢迎。总统特朗普在社交媒体上称这是"巨大胜利"。 当地时间2025年6月27日，美国华盛顿特区，美国总统特朗普在白宫新闻发布会上回答关于最高法院 近期裁决的问题。 图片来源：视觉中国 "出生公民权"政策在美国已有150多年历史。1868年通过的美国宪法第十四条修正案对"出 生公民权"作出规定，即"所有在美出生或归化并受其管辖者，皆为美国及居住州公民"。该 条款授予所有在美国出生的人美国公民身份，这意味着，哪怕是持有旅游、工作或其他签证 的在美人员甚至是非法入境者，他们在美国出生的孩子都可以成为美国公民。 特朗普今年1月20日上任首日签署行政令废除"出生公民权"，规定父母非美国公民或合法永 久居民的新生儿 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a single judge cannot block a presidential order nationwide, allowing the Trump administration's restrictions on birthright citizenship to take effect [1][3]. Group 1: Birthright Citizenship Overview - The "birthright citizenship" policy has been in place for over 150 years, established by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. [2]. - The Trump administration's executive order aims to eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents, which has sparked significant public debate [3][4]. Group 2: Legal and Implementation Aspects - The Supreme Court's decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with its executive order, which will not recognize citizenship for two categories of individuals: those born to illegal residents and those born to temporary legal residents [4]. - The executive order will take effect within 30 days in 28 states, while federal district courts in states that have previously issued nationwide injunctions will need to revise their rulings [5]. Group 3: Reactions and Future Implications - Immigration rights groups expressed disappointment and concern over the ruling, predicting it will lead to confusion and inequality [7]. - Legal experts indicate that further lawsuits are likely, as the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the executive order itself, which may be reviewed in the fall [8].

【导读】纳指、标普500指数创历史新高！ 美东时间6月27日周五，美股收涨，纳指与标普500指数均创历史新高。美国5月消费支出创年初以来最大降幅。 欧洲销量五连跌，马斯克解雇北美及欧洲业务负责人。 黄金连续第二周走低，现货黄金本周跌约2.8%。油价本周重挫约13%。 纳指、标普500指数创历史新高 截至收盘，道指涨1%，报43819.27点，标普500指数涨0.52%，报6173.07点，纳指涨0.52%，报20273.46点。其中，标普500指数、纳指均创历史新高。 本周，道指涨3.82%，标普500指数涨3.44%，纳指涨4.25%。 大型科技股多数上涨，谷歌、亚马逊涨逾2%，英伟达涨超1%，脸书涨逾1%，苹果涨0.04%，微软跌0.3%，特斯拉跌0.61%。 | TAMAMA科技指数 | 17389.79 | 1.07% | | --- | --- | --- | | 8884057 | | | | 苹果(APPLE) | 201.080 | 0.04% | | US AAPL | 201.180 | 0.05% 盘后 | | 谷歌(ALPHABET)-A | 178.530 | 2.88% | | U ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration's executive order to limit birthright citizenship, allowing the administration to proceed with its measures [1][3]. Group 1: Supreme Court Ruling - The Supreme Court, controlled by conservatives, voted 6 to 3 to approve the Trump administration's request, limiting the scope of federal district judges' injunctions to only the states, groups, and individuals that filed lawsuits [1]. - The ruling did not address the constitutionality of the Trump administration's executive order itself [1]. Group 2: Reactions to the Ruling - Three liberal justices expressed dissent, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor labeling the Trump administration's actions as "blatantly unconstitutional" and "manipulative" [1]. - Immigration groups expressed disappointment and concern, stating that the ruling would lead to "chaos, inequality, and fear" [1]. Group 3: Background on Birthright Citizenship - The birthright citizenship policy has been in place for over 100 years, ensuring that anyone born in the U.S. is granted citizenship regardless of their parents' status [3]. - On January 20, the Trump administration signed an executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship, stating that newborns of non-citizen or non-permanent resident parents would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship [3]. - This executive order triggered a series of legal challenges, with federal district judges in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts issuing nationwide injunctions to block its implementation [3].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block President Trump's efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants or those on temporary visas [1] Group 1 - The Supreme Court's decision limits the power of federal district courts in issuing nationwide injunctions, stating that such injunctions may exceed the authority granted by Congress [1] - The ruling comes after President Trump signed an executive order to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants or temporary visa holders [1] - Multiple federal judges had previously blocked Trump's executive order regarding the elimination of birthright citizenship [1] Group 2 - The Trump administration appealed against the ruling that blocked the elimination of birthright citizenship on February 19 [1] - On March 13, the Trump administration requested the Supreme Court to intervene and restrict actions that hinder the process of eliminating birthright citizenship [1]

Core Points - The Trump administration is facing numerous lawsuits, with over 300 legal challenges arising from executive orders within the first five months of governance [1] - Key lawsuits include those related to tariffs, immigration, and government efficiency, with many expected to reach the Supreme Court [9] Tariff Litigation - The Trump administration's tariff policies have led to at least seven lawsuits from various states and organizations, with a notable case involving 12 states challenging the legality of "reciprocal tariffs" [2] - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled against the administration's tariffs, but the decision was temporarily stayed by the Federal Circuit Court [2][3] Harvard University Lawsuit - Harvard University is engaged in a significant legal battle with the Trump administration over the freezing of approximately $2.2 billion in federal funding, which the university claims is an attempt to control academic decisions [4][5] - The lawsuit represents a broader conflict between higher education institutions and the Trump administration, with implications for the 2024 presidential election [4][6] Immigration Litigation - The Trump administration has initiated multiple lawsuits regarding immigration policies, including the attempt to eliminate "birthright citizenship" and terminate temporary legal status for certain immigrants [7] - The Supreme Court is expected to rule on these immigration-related cases, which could facilitate the deportation of nearly one million immigrants [7] Government Efficiency Department Lawsuits - The establishment of the "Government Efficiency Department" has led to over 40 lawsuits due to significant cuts in federal spending and employee layoffs [8] - Notable cases include a temporary injunction against mass layoffs and lawsuits from public broadcasting entities challenging the termination of federal funding [8] Supreme Court Dynamics - Many of the significant lawsuits involving the Trump administration are likely to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority may influence outcomes favorably for the administration [9] - The political polarization in the U.S. raises questions about the independence of the judiciary, as justices face pressure from both liberal and conservative factions [9]