美最高法院支持出生公民权，特朗普受挫

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5:00 p.m. Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube. It's on this last day of the second quarter. Thank you so much. Of course, that also coincides with the last day of this Supreme Court term.

As usual, the court saved a number of blockbuster cases for the very uh last day and handed those decisions down this morning, including, of course, uh one of the big ones on birthright citizenship, which no surprise, President Trump, given it was his executive order that the court uh shut down in a split ruling, has reacted to on true social, calling the decision or the decision to uphold birthright citizenship too bad for our country.

But he says it could easily be made up for in Congress through legislation. No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary, though I would imagine that is going to be the subject of much debate in the days and months and years ahead. Joe,

yeah, I'm not sure that the leader is ready to tackle that right now as we're still trying to get the housing bill signed among other issues. Uh he's right though. This would be the way to do it is through Congress and it's not a path that this uh administration has taken. A lot of the political analysis though, and we'll talk to Rick and Doug about this later, is that was never really even about winning

for this president. It was about seen trying, being caught in the act, and he can certainly talk to his base about that.

Well, yeah, and I would imagine we're going to continue to see him do so, knowing that even though the court didn't rule with him on this case, in this instance, they sure gave him a lot of victories over the course of this term.

That's right. We've got a couple to pick through today. Not in tariffs, uh, and not in mail and ballots yesterday. But let's talk about what we learned today with Tyler Kendall. Our Washington correspondent has made her way to the Supreme Court where she's been the last couple of days and back now with what was a more rambunctious crowd a little bit earlier. Uh Tyler, let's start with the birthright citizenship case.

The reaction that you saw on the ground there and the opinions from the court when you listened to arguments that the president himself attended. A lot of people thought they knew where this was going.

Right, Joe? This decision was widely expected because we got those signals from the Supreme Court justices that they were wary of the Trump administration's uh executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship. Even at the time of the oral arguments, we saw the Chief Justice John Roberts call the administration's uh legal position quote quirky. So even, you know, President Trump himself alluded to the fact that he didn't think that this was going to land in his favor.

As you mentioned, once this decision came uh down, we did hear an uproar here on the ground of the Supreme Court because this had some pretty broadreaching implications when you think about how this really was a central plank of President Trump's immigration agenda. But ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld that those key five words in the the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment that if you were born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you are a US citizen.

The Trump administration didn't want that specific provision to apply so broadly, but the Supreme Court ultimately pushed back on it and sided with what has been long-standing legal precedent.

Well, Tyler, when we consider uh the new president that the court is setting as well, let's talk about the campaign finance orienting oriented case on partisan or ideological lines. They threw out long-standing limits on how much a political party is able to coordinate uh with individual candidates over the course of a campaign. Walk us through the implications of this ruling potentially as soon as as immediately as we look to November.

Right. In fact, Kaylee, there has been reporting that the political parties have actually held back their spending because they were waiting to see how this Supreme Court case would come down because it's going to dictate their strategy going forward. in particular when it comes to the advertisements that you typically see on the airwaves. This is considered to be really monumental for campaign finance going forward.

As we look ahead to November, I can see Capitol Hill from where I'm standing across the street from the Supreme Court and uh the control of Congress is really those razor thin margins, which means every dollar is ultimately going to count towards uh these parties. Now, this was the National Republican Senatorial Committee verse the FEC, the Federal Election Commission. And Republicans had basically argued that these caps on coordinating between the candidates and the political committees was unconstitutional because it restricted their free speech because they weren't able to essentially coordinate on their political messaging.

And the Supreme Court here ruled in their favor. And the upshot that you need to know is that under uh this law, candidates get a more preferential rate when it comes to TV uh advertisement slots. But now these political committees are going to be able to get that preferential rate, which essentially means that the fundraising dollars are going to go even further than they did before in a bid to influ influence voters as we head into the midterms.

All right, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall live outside the Supreme Court on a scorcher in Washington, but an important day uh as well as the court makes history. Thank you uh so much. And as we consider what Tyler was getting out there, the actual financial implications of that. Certainly, if you're a broadcaster selling advertising slots, this may actually have an impact for you as you're looking ahead to political spending uh in November.

But then there is the wider political considerations as well because as we alluded to, Republicans do have the cash advantage in this cycle at least. So on that note, we turn now to our political panel. Rick Davis is with us, Bloomberg politics contributor, Republican strategist, and Stone Court partner alongside Democratic strategist Doug Faraher, principal at Maywood Strategies, and former senior adviser to FTC Commissioner Lena Khan.

Uh Doug, I'll come to you on just that gap. First and foremost, the RNC, the NRSC and the uh uh House affiliate as well had $256 million in the bank. That's double the amount that Democrats have at the party level right now. So, how concerned does this make you as a Democrat ahead of November?

It's definitely concerning. I mean, the Republican cash advantage was always there and now it'll be augmented by this ruling. uh you know I I think in this upcoming election there's a lot of wind at the backs of the Democrats because of the unpopularity of the president his policies and his sort of pronouncements and his his repainting of the of the reflecting pool and all these crazy things he does. So I think it will be muted by that a little bit.

But in the long term, as we saw with Citizens United, these sort of opening up of opportunities for Republicans who are always going to have more cash to use that cash more effectively in ads and in other coordination is going to be a problem for the Democrats. It's also going to change the Democratic strategy. You've got an ascendant leftwing worried about corporate power, worried about billionaires, and now you have an incentive for Democrats running for office to seek out billionaire patrons uh and make policy concessions to them to juice their campaigns.

So, I think the net effect on the Democrats immediately is a little bit blunted by the possible blue wave, but over time it'll change our politics, frankly

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 ↗」。