在美国政治圈，阿贝·洛威尔（Abbe Lowell）这个名字已经变得非常响亮。 他早期参与了比尔·克林顿弹劾案的辩护工作，从那时起，他就开始为许多政界的"受困者"提供法律支持。最近，洛威尔的战场转向了另一方向，专注于为 那些被特朗普政府列入"清算名单"的官员和律师提供辩护。 2025年5月，洛威尔离开了自己曾效力多年的老牌律所，创办了自己的律师事务所——洛威尔律师事务所（Lowell & Associates），明确表示要为那些"因政 治立场或政府行为而遭受不公正法律追诉"的人群提供法律服务。 最近，他接手的几件案件格外引人注目。例如，他为纽约州总检察长莱蒂蒂娅·詹姆斯（Letitia James）辩护，詹姆斯被指控涉及银行欺诈和虚假陈述；他还 为美联储理事丽莎·库克（Lisa Cook）代理案件，挑战总统试图解除她职务的决定；另外，他还帮助了在特朗普政府"清算行动"中被撤职的多名联邦执法人 员维权。这些案件看似是单纯的法律争议，实则背后隐藏着"制度与权力边界"的较量。洛威尔将自己的律所视为"防卫阵地"，用来抵抗他所认为的"政府权 力滥用"。 2025年初，洛威尔律师事务所正式成立，他公开宣布，事务所的使命是 ...

追溯这一司法理论的发展历程，其雏形最早出现在2014年的公用事业空气监管集团诉美国环保署案中。 当时正值奥巴马执政时期，案件争议焦点是环保署对燃煤电厂碳排放的新规。最高法院在判决中首次提 出，涉及重大经济影响的监管政策需要国会明确授权这一概念。虽然该案仅针对环境监管领域，但其确 立的司法理念为后续发展埋下伏笔。到2022年西弗吉尼亚诉环保署案时，这一理论已发展成熟。由首席 大法官罗伯茨主笔的判决书，以6:3的票数彻底推翻了拜登政府的发电厂碳排放计划，并明确宣告：涉 及重大经济和政治意义的政策必须获得国会明确授权。此后，该原则在2023年拜登诉内布拉斯加州案中 得到进一步强化，导致总额达4300亿美元的学生贷款减免计划流产。 特朗普重返白宫后，贸易政策立即成为其执政议程的核心议题。这位以美国优先为口号的总统在上任首 周就签署行政令，宣布对来自中国、欧盟等主要贸易伙伴的商品加征全面关税，平均税率从原先的3% 飙升至25%。这项政策旨在通过提高贸易壁垒来缩减美国长期存在的巨额贸易逆差，同时为本土制造业 提供保护。然而政策实施仅三个月，就遭到美国进口商联盟的强烈抵制。由V.O.S.精选公司牵头，联合 全美12个州的进 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses recent legal setbacks faced by former President Trump, highlighting the implications of his business-like approach to governance and the resulting conflicts with established legal frameworks [1][3][20]. Group 1: Legal Setbacks - A federal judge in California ruled that Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles in June violated the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement without congressional approval [9][13][22]. - In a separate ruling, a federal appeals court determined that Trump's broad tariffs were illegal, emphasizing that the power to levy taxes is constitutionally reserved for Congress, not the President [7][20]. Group 2: Business Approach to Governance - Trump's background as a businessman influences his decision-making, particularly his use of tariffs as negotiation tools, akin to tactics used in business negotiations [5][7]. - The article notes that Trump's attempts to manage state affairs as if they were business operations have led to significant legal challenges, as governance requires adherence to constitutional limits on presidential power [18][20]. Group 3: Political and Legal Implications - The rulings against Trump may lead to substantial financial implications for the U.S. Treasury, as the government might have to refund previously collected tariffs, creating uncertainty for businesses regarding future import costs [20][22]. - The ongoing legal battles could escalate to the Supreme Court, where recent trends indicate a focus on limiting executive power and reinforcing the necessity for congressional authorization in significant decisions [22].

美联储理事丽莎·库克与总统特朗普的法律对决正式拉开帷幕。当地时间近日，库克在华盛顿联邦法院对特朗普提起诉讼，指控其试图"立即"罢免自己的 行为"史无前例且非法"。这起案件不仅涉及一名央行高级官员的职位存续，更可能成为界定美国央行独立性与总统行政权力边界的关键法律战，首次听证 会定于周五举行，法律界普遍预测案件将最终上诉至最高法院。 事件的导火索是特朗普在社交媒体平台"真相社交"上突然宣布，以库克涉嫌在房屋贷款申请中虚报主要住所为由，"立即解除"其美联储理事职务。库克于 2022年由时任总统拜登提名并经参议院确认，任期本应持续至2038年，同时作为联邦公开市场委员会投票委员，她直接参与制定利率政策。特朗普的罢免 声明一经发布，便在金融与法律界引发轩然大波。 库克迅速回应称："特朗普无权罢免我，我将继续履行职责，帮助美国经济稳定发展。"其律师团队随即向联邦法院提交诉讼文件，强调美联储理事的罢免 需满足特定法律条件，总统无权单方面决定。法律专家指出，若特朗普的罢免理由缺乏实质证据，其行为可能构成对央行独立性的严重侵犯。 这起案件折射出美国政治生态中行政权与独立机构权力的深层矛盾。自特朗普执政以来，其多次试图通过人事 ...

Core Viewpoint - The tensions arising from the Los Angeles riots are spreading to other U.S. cities, highlighting the ongoing conflict between federal and state government powers, particularly regarding the deployment of the National Guard without state consent [1][6]. Group 1: Federal and State Government Dynamics - The conflict between the federal government and state governments has intensified, with the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops in California being a focal point of contention [1][6]. - California's Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are suing the federal government, claiming the deployment of National Guard troops without local consent infringes on state rights [6]. - The political polarization in the U.S. is evident, with Democratic governors supporting California's stance against the federal government, while Republican leaders generally support the federal actions [6][7]. Group 2: Military Deployment and Legal Framework - As of March 2023, the U.S. has approximately 1.32 million active-duty military personnel, with the majority stationed domestically [2]. - The National Guard in the U.S. consists of over 430,000 members, with California having the largest contingent at about 24,000 [3]. - The Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy federal troops domestically under certain conditions, although the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement is generally prohibited [3][4]. Group 3: Political Implications and Historical Context - The last invocation of the Insurrection Act was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where federal troops were deployed at the request of local authorities [4]. - The current situation reflects a broader trend of increasing federal power at the expense of state authority, with historical precedents of federal intervention during civil rights movements [8][10]. - The ongoing conflicts between federal and state governments are reshaping the political landscape, leading to a "blue state versus red state" dynamic, particularly on issues like immigration and abortion [8][9].