最高法院关键周：出生公民权与美联储理事解雇案待决

Tomorrow, we will hopefully get word on more opinions from the Supreme Court. Key decisions are still on the docket, including birthright citizenship and President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Joining us now is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Staub. He's been incredibly busy filing numerous reports and all the decisions we have not handed down. Waiting on these, of course, let's take them in kind if we could.

And let's start with that Lisa Cook decision. This is about whether the president can do this temporarily. But of course the ramifications extend far beyond that. Greg, get us up to speed on sort of where things stand and how the arguments in that case kind of color what you expect to happen when that is handed down. Yeah. Good morning, David and Christina. Uh, this is a huge case for the independence of the federal Federal Reserve.

The president, uh, has tried to fire Lisa Cook, a fed governor, for alleged mortgage fraud. She denies the allegation. And the question before the Supreme Court, as you said, is just whether he can oust her while that legal fight goes forward. The arguments back in January did not go especially well for the president. There was certainly, uh, a lot of skepticism that, uh, he should be allowed to remove her before she even had a chance to defend herself, defend herself against the allegations, and to say that he's overstepping his authority.

The court was also, though, pretty wary of what this decision might mean down the road for other cases. There is concern about saying too much about what power the president does have to fire somebody. Federal law says he can fire somebody for cause exactly what that means. Uh, it has not been spelled out. So we may get a relatively narrow decision that keeps her in office, but doesn't answer every single question. This is also tied to another case that we're waiting for, which is the FTC commissioner, uh, slaughter v Trump, because it's a different federal agency, and it's likely the court is going to support the president in that one.

But based on the arguments we were hearing from even some of the conservative justices, they seem very leery of the president's power to get rid of, uh, Cooke. So talk to us about the difference in this case and how you think the court might try to split those different arguments. Right. So that case is known as slaughter has named after a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. So it goes back to the 1930s.

The Supreme Court at that point said Congress can set up independent federal agencies and say the leaders of them, the commissioners of the FTC, for example, can't be removed unless the president has a good reason, like misconduct. And that laid the legal groundwork for the administrative state that we all came to know. And the Supreme Court has been chipping away at that. And what the court could do this coming week is saying we're going to overturn that big 1935 precedent and say the president can fire the heads of those agencies for any reason because they, uh, they have executive powers and they executive power under the Constitution belongs to the president.

So he must be able to fire them whenever they're not adhering to his policy preferences. Now, important note, the Supreme Court has suggested earlier that the fed is not part of that discussion, that the fed is different and that whatever it does in this case involving the Federal Trade Commission is not going to affect the fed. And that's why the Lisa Cooke case matters, because there the president says it's not just for any reason.

I think she has done something wrong. And that's why I'm firing her. So that's a different category of case. Greg, the other big one that we're waiting for is this birthright citizenship. Should citizenship case and correct me if I'm wrong? My understanding is, uh, by statute and by the 14th amendment. If you have a kid in this country, regardless of who you are, uh, in all likelihood, that kid will be a U.S. citizen.

The Trump administration wants to change that policy. Again, I'll ask you sort of what the arguments in that case tell you about what outcome we might see here when that decision is handed down. Yeah, that's exactly right. So the 14th amendment enacted after the Civil War says that if you're born in the U.S. and, quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you are a United States citizen. And that has long been understood as as you described, basically making virtually everybody who is born on U.S. soil a U.S. citizen.

And the president, uh, when he came back into office last year, uh, enacted an executive order that said, I'm going to limit the, uh, that, that right to people who are born of either a U.S. citizen parent or a green card holder parent. And that would, uh, completely upend this understanding that everybody has had for for more than a century. The arguments, uh, again, did not go especially well for the president on that issue.

There was a good deal of skepticism, both on the constitutional point and the statutory point. The statute you mentioned, uh, had the exact same language. So, uh, with both of those cases, even though this is a very conservative Supreme Court, it is not it would that both the cook and the birthright citizenship case, it would not at all be surprised, uh, a surprise for the Supreme Court to rule against the president.

One of the other things that I thought was interesting in the arguments, as some of the justices were asking, um, uh, John Sauer, who's representing the government, essentially the the status of the child would be in limbo. And that would have to be litigated for months based on whether or not the president I'm sorry, the parent was determined to domicile there whether or not they had status. It seems like the adjudication part of that would be just insurmountable.

And there's no apparatus to decide whether or not, you know, like there's no end point for that, right? That was one of the big arguments, as well as just a lot of case law here. Going back to the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Dred Scott decision. This has been a long established precedent the court would be asked to go against. Yeah. One of the big arguments against this is just that it would not be administer at all. Uh, if if a hospital has to check for a birth certificate of a parent or some other proof of citizenship from the parent, uh, in order to decide whether to issue a birth certificate to that child.

Um, there's also questions about what it would mean for people who are already born. People who were born due to non-citizen parents, uh, in the past. Is their citizenship suddenly in question? So, uh, a ruling that sided with the president that upheld this executive order would have tremendous implications. And we really don't know what all those implications are going to be. It would be a real challenge for everybody to figure out how it would be applied.

Our last question is a logistical one and somewhat selfish as well as we can. Completely selfish. Sick of that. So I understand tomorrow. Monday, 10:00 eastern time. That's the first opportunity justices have to hand down these these decisions. I gather there's another day in the week ahead. Any likelihood that this gets pushed, that we might get decisions in the week after, for instance. So it's two people who have been on standby like three weeks in a row along with you for these decisions that haven't come down.

Let's have it. So it's selfish for me to, uh, I certainly hope not. And in fact, I'm quite confident everything will come this week. In my time covering the Supreme Court, the only time the court has gone past the 4th of July was in the pandemic year, and that was obviously a different category because the whole schedule got upended there. I would be I don't know when that second day is going to be, but I would be very surprised if we didn't get the last Supreme Court opinions sometime, either Tuesday, Wednesday o

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。