風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
美國最高法院大法官索托馬約爾無視退休壓力——報道
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg4n2rdjp6o
Sam Cabral BBC 新聞，華盛頓 2024 年 11 月 10 日
Getty Images 索尼婭·索托馬約爾留著一頭黑色短卷發，身穿深藍色夾克，內搭黑色上衣，戴著羽毛狀耳環，在訪問西班牙期間合影這位 70 歲法官的親近人士表示，她“身體狀況很好”
唐納德·特朗普警告不要在就職前倉促任命法官，因為接近最高法院大法官索尼婭·索托馬約爾的消息人士否認她應該辭職以讓位給繼任者的建議。
70 歲的索托馬約爾大法官是九名法官中年齡第三大的法官，她長期以來一直公開自己患有 1 型糖尿病。
特朗普即將重返白宮，這讓焦慮的民主黨人更加焦急，他們要求她辭職，以便拜登總統有機會提名更年輕的繼任者。
但消息人士告訴美國媒體，索托馬約爾大法官不打算去任何地方。
“現在不是失去她在法庭上重要聲音的時候，”一位知情人士告訴《華爾街日報》，並補充說她“比我認識的任何人都更照顧自己”。
CNN 的報道說：“她的健康狀況很好，法庭現在比以往任何時候都更需要她。”消息人士還告訴 ABC 新聞，她沒有辭職的計劃。
英國廣播公司已聯係她征求意見。
參議員伯尼·桑德斯周日向 NBC 的《與媒體見麵》節目承認，他聽到了“一點”關於要求索托馬約爾大法官辭職的傳言，但表示要求她辭職的呼聲“不合理”。
華盛頓沒有民選民主黨人要求她辭去終身任命。
美國最高法院的法官是誰？
最高法院如何成為政治戰場
這位波多黎各法學家是第一位在最高法院任職的有色人種女性，她的公共日程很繁忙，在口頭辯論期間不斷提問。
但全國各地的許多自由主義者都記得大法官露絲·巴德·金斯伯格 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) 在特朗普第一任期內於 2020 年去世。
金斯伯格大法官被她的崇拜者稱為“RBG”，因胰腺癌並發症去世，享年 87 歲。
在總統大選前 46 天，她的去世和由此導致的最高法院空缺引發了一場政治風暴，並讓特朗普有機會第三次任命美國最高法院的終身法官。
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數變為六比三。
這個傾向於保守的法院做出了重大決定——從 2022 年廢除全國墮胎權到城市如何處理無家可歸者問題——這些決定在美國各地都有所體現。
由於特朗普準備在 1 月份接替拜登，一些民主黨人和自由派活動人士敦促索托馬約爾大法官退休以防萬一。
她的辯護人認為這一呼籲是年齡歧視，並辯稱她的健康狀況得到很好的管理。
距離特朗普就職僅剩兩個多月，拜登幾乎沒有時間提名——參議院也沒有時間確認——新大法官。
周日，這位共和黨當選總統在社交媒體上發帖稱，“在共和黨爭奪誰將領導新的參議院多數席位時，民主黨正試圖強行通過他們的法官”。
特朗普可能還有更多機會塑造最高法院。
保守派大法官克拉倫斯·托馬斯和塞繆爾·阿利托分別為 76 歲和 74 歲。
如果共和黨選擇他們的繼任者，他將成為自富蘭克林·羅斯福以來第一位任命多數大法官進入最高法院的總統。
在他的第一個任期內，特朗普還塑造了司法部門的下級法院，與參議院共和黨人合作，在四年內任命了 234 名聯邦法官。
最高法院如何成為政治戰場
幽靈槍和跨性別護理：美國最高法院麵臨的重大案件
拜登批評“極端”最高法院推動改革
拜登確實有機會任命凱坦吉·布朗·傑克遜大法官，她將於 2022 年接替退休的斯蒂芬·布雷耶大法官。
傑克遜大法官作為第一位進入最高法院的黑人女性創造了曆史，但鑒於她和布雷耶大法官都是自由主義者，因此並沒有改變其黨派構成。
今年 7 月，拜登提出了任期限製和法官道德準則，但隨著共和黨重新掌權白宮和至少一個國會議院，這一想法預計不會有任何進展。
一些最高法院成員也卷入了道德爭議，公眾對最高法院的信任度下降。民意調查顯示，目前略多於一半的民眾不認可該機構的工作。
幽靈槍和跨性別護理：美國最高法院審理的重大案件
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c206zn2gy37o?
Holly Honderich 2024 年 10 月 6 日華盛頓報道
美國最高法院將於周一開始新的九個月任期，審理的重大案件將影響美國生活的方方麵麵。
去年的重磅任期結束後，最高法院的九名大法官又回來了，他們做出了保護廣泛使用的墮胎藥或授予前總統唐納德·特朗普部分免於起訴的裁決。
未來幾個月可能會因即將到來的總統選舉而引發法律糾紛，這可能會對本應激烈的競選產生影響。
由於保守派以六比三的多數優勢保持優勢，最高法院的裁決可能會進一步加劇美國公眾的懷疑，根據蓋洛普的調查，美國公眾對其工作的認可度目前為 43%，接近曆史最低水平。
新的一年即將到來，讓我們來看看最高法院審理的一些重大案件。
田納西州的跨性別護理
本學期最受關注的案件可能是 US v Skrmetti，法官將聽取拜登政府對共和黨支持的未成年人性別護理禁令的質疑。
田納西州的禁令於 2023 年 7 月生效，禁止對患有性別焦慮症的未成年人進行某些治療，包括開具任何青春期阻滯劑或激素處方，如果治療的目的是“使未成年人能夠認同或以與未成年人性別不一致的身份生活”或治療“因未成年人性別與所聲稱的身份不一致而產生的不適或痛苦”。
BMA 對性別審查持“中立立場”
跨性別男性稱性別護理審查令人失望
三個跨性別者的經曆：“我躲了這麽久”
一群年輕的跨性別者、他們的家人和醫療服務提供者與拜登政府一起挑戰美國第六巡回上訴法院維持田納西州禁令的裁決。
九名最高法院法官將被要求權衡該禁令是否違反了美國憲法第十四修正案，該修正案賦予法律下的平等保護。
該決定可能會在全國範圍內產生影響。近年來，已有 20 多個州頒布法律，限製跨性別青年獲得定製護理的機會。
這些限製遭到了包括美國醫學會和美國兒科學會在內的主要醫療團體的反對。
幽靈槍
在開庭的第二天，最高法院將聽取對酒精、煙草、火器和爆炸物管理局 (ATF) 一項關於所謂“幽靈槍”的新法規的質疑，這些槍支大多由家庭套件製成，無法追蹤。
Garland v VanDerStok 一案的核心在於 ATF 是否可以像監管商業槍支銷售一樣監管這些武器，包括序列號和聯邦背景調查。
拜登政府於 2022 年首次實施這些限製，但很快被下級法院阻止，該法院站在一群槍支擁有者、槍支權利組織和槍支製造商一邊，他們認為 ATF 超越了其權限。
幽靈槍是無法追蹤的武器，看起來、感覺和射擊都和普通槍一樣。
司法部隨後提出上訴，將此案提交給該國最高法院。
為什麽幽靈槍是美國增長最快的槍支問題
該案可能對美國槍支管製產生重大影響。白宮表示，未登記的武器構成了越來越大的威脅，2021 年刑事調查中發現了 20,000 支疑似幽靈槍，比五年前增加了十倍。
致命槍擊案中的武力使用
最高法院還將審理一個案件，以澄清法院如何確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組今年裁定，一名德克薩斯州警察在 2016 年休斯頓的一次交通攔截中開槍打死一名司機時，有理由擔心自己的生命安全。
當警官 Roberto Felix Jr 攔下 Ashtian Barnes 時，他開著女友租的車，車上有未付的過路費。Barnes 先生最初停下車並打開了後備箱，但隨後開始開車離開。根據行車記錄儀的鏡頭，Felix 警官跳上車，向車內開了兩槍。一顆子彈擊中了 Barnes 先生的頭部，他不治身亡。
巴恩斯先生的母親賈尼絲·休斯·巴恩斯代表兒子提起訴訟，稱對她兒子使用致命武力是不合理的，侵犯了他的第四修正案權利，該權利保護人們免受政府的不合理搜查和扣押。
法官發現，根據第四修正案的“威脅時刻”原則，菲利克斯警官的行為是合理的，該原則詢問警官在使用武力時是否處於危險之中。根據這一標準，警官在那一時刻之前的行為不予考慮。
小組中的一位法官帕特裏克·希金博坦法官寫了一份同意意見，表達了對測試的不滿，並詢問,請求最高法院介入。
希金博坦法官表示，如果允許他考慮“所有情況”，他會發現該警官侵犯了巴恩斯先生的第四修正案權利。
網絡色情的年齡限製
雖然此案的開庭日期尚未確定，但在本學期的某個時候，最高法院法官將考慮成人娛樂業對德克薩斯州一項要求色情網站核實其用戶年齡的法律提出的挑戰。
該法律要求三分之一內容對未成年人有害的色情網站使用年齡驗證措施，以確保所有訪問者年齡在 18 歲及以上。
行業聲稱，它還要求網站發布健康警告，稱色情會上癮、損害發育並增加對兒童剝削的需求。
其他幾個美國州，包括阿肯色州、路易斯安那州、蒙大拿州和北卡羅來納州，也要求某些網站核實訪問者的年齡。
代表色情行業的言論自由聯盟對該法律提出質疑，稱其違反了第一修正案的言論自由保護。
該質疑在聯邦地區法院獲得成功，但該裁決在上訴中被第五巡回上訴法院推翻。
該裁決可能對第一修正案的保護產生廣泛影響，可能會顛覆過去的裁決，該裁決認為成年人的言論自由權大於對未成年人可能造成的傷害。
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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".
- BMA takes 'neutral position' on gender review
- Gender care review disappointing, says trans man
- Three trans journeys: 'I spent so long hiding'
A group of young transgender people, their families and medical providers, have joined the Biden administration in challenging a decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that upheld the Tennessee ban.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
