宪法
宪法概述Overview of Constitutional Law
我如何讲宪法How I Teach Constitutional Law
I choose to teach in the order of the original text of the Constitution. This is very suitable for Chinese students who have never studied the U.S. Constitution, and it will also make the transition to Criminal Procedure smoother. The Constitution consists of 7 Articles and 27 Amendments, totaling 34 provisions. The more important ones are only Articles I through IV, and the First through Fifteenth Amendments. For about 16 of these 19 provisions, we not only need to remember their content, but also exactly which Article or Amendment they are, though you do not need to memorize the specific Section or Clause.
我选择用宪法原文的顺序来讲，这样很适合中国从来没有学过美国宪法的学生，而且学刑诉的时候也不会突兀。宪法一共7条、27个修正案，一共34条。比较重要的只有第1-4条，和第1-15修正案。这19条中的大概16条我们不仅要记得内容，还要记得是具体哪一条或第几修正案，但可以不用记得是第几款。
Reference materials for this subject include:
单科参考材料有：
The Constitution provides that the seat of the government of the United States shall not exceed ten miles square, which means a maximum of 100 square miles, rather than the 10 square miles translated in this book.
宪法规定合众国政府所在地的边长不能超过10英里（ten miles square），即最大100平方英里，而不是这本书翻译的10平方英里。
我如何看待宪法How I View Constitutional Law
The Constitution is the foundation of the United States, and America's rise to become the most powerful country in the world is not unrelated to it. However, I do not need to over-praise it, because this Constitution is obviously imperfect; otherwise, the Founding Fathers would not have left room for amendments. The Founders probably did not anticipate that this Constitution would later become so difficult to amend that the vast majority of the provisions drafted centuries ago are still being observed and frequently cited in the 21st century.
宪法是美国的立国之本，美国成为世界上最强大的国家和宪法不无关系。但我也不必过度赞美它，因为这部宪法显然是不完美的，不然立国的先贤们也不会留下修改的口子。先贤们可能没有想到这部宪法后来如此难以修改，以至于几百年前制订的条文绝大多数直到21世纪了还在被遵守和频繁引用。
Errors in constitutional precedents can be resolved by amending the Constitution, but our Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend. [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022)]
宪法判例的错误可以通过修改宪法来解决，但我们的宪法是臭名昭著的难以修改。[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022)]
I will try my best to explain objectively how this law is currently applied—which is already quite difficult—and as for what it should be, that is a matter for politicians and Justices to consider.
我会尽量不带观点地讲清楚这部法律目前是如何适用的——这已经很不容易了——而至于它应该是怎样的，那是政治家和大法官们考虑的事情。
However, I am still willing to express my fondness for this subject (rather than the Constitution itself), just as I like Chinese administrative law. During the exam, Constitutional Law was the subject I mastered best, and the same is true for many candidates from mainland China.
但我还是愿意表达一下我对这门学科（而不是宪法本身）的喜爱，正如我喜欢中国的行政法学一样。在考试的时候，宪法是我学得最好的一门学科，很多中国大陆的考生也是如此。
如何学习宪法How to Study Constitutional Law
There are no shortcuts to studying Constitutional Law: do more practice questions and read the handouts more often. Every time you read the handouts, you will gain new insights. Although my speaking speed is not slow, I still recommend that you listen to the lectures at an accelerated speed multiple times in the later stages of your preparation.
学习宪法没有什么捷径：多做题多看讲义，每次看讲义都会有不一样的感悟。虽然我语速并不慢，后期依然建议你加速多听几遍。
Is it helpful to read Supreme Court cases? Of course it is, but it is too time-consuming; it is enough that I have read them for you.
看最高法院的判例有帮助吗？当然有帮助，但是太耗时间，我帮你看了就行。
宪法历史Constitutional History
After the Revolutionary War, the 13 British colonies in America broke away from British rule. Initially, however, they only had a loose confederation. To promote commerce among the states and form a relatively centralized national government, delegates from the states drafted this Constitution in Philadelphia.
独立战争后，英国在美洲的13个殖民地脱离英国的管辖。但最初他们只有一个松散的邦联。为了促进各州之间通商往来，形成一个相对集权的中央政府，各州的代表在费城制定了这部宪法。
The U.S. flag, the 'Stars and Stripes,' consists of 50 five-pointed stars and 13 stripes. The 13 stripes represent the 13 founding states, and the 50 stars represent the current 50 states.
美国的国旗“星条旗”由50个五角星和13个条纹组成，13个条纹代表建国的13个州，50个五角星代表目前的50个州。
宪法序言Preamble to the Constitution
The Preamble to the Constitution is not tested on the exam; its content is:
宪法序言不是考试范围，其内容是：
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
我们合众国人民（We the people of the United States），为建立更完善的联邦，树立正义，保障国内安宁，提供共同防务，促进公共福利，并使我们自己和后代得享自由的幸福，特为美利坚合众国制定本宪法。
宪法第1条Article I of the Constitution
国会Congress
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that all legislative powers of the United States shall be vested in a Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
宪法第1条第1款规定，合众国的立法权归国会（Congress），国会由参议院（Senate）和众议院（House of Representatives）组成。
Section 2 sets forth the method for electing Representatives. It also provides that the House of Representatives has the power to initiate impeachment.
第2款规定了众议员的选举方法。规定了众议院有启动弹劾（impeach）的权力。
Section 3 sets forth the method for electing Senators. It provides that the Vice President is the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided. It provides that the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. It provides that when the President is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. It provides that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. It provides that judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
第3款规定了参议员的选举方法。规定了副总统是参议院的院长，但只有在赞成票和反对票相等时才有表决权。规定弹劾案的审讯由参议院审理。规定总统被弹劾时，由最高法院首席法官担任主席。规定弹劾的通过要由出席参议员的三分之二同意。规定弹劾以剥夺公职及取消未来任职资格为限。
When Donald Trump was impeached the first time, he was the President of the United States, so Chief Justice Roberts presided; when he was tried in the Senate the second time, he was no longer the President, so the President pro tempore of the Senate presided. Both impeachments were initiated by a majority vote in the House of Representatives, but both failed because they did not receive a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
特朗普第一次被弹劾时是合众国总统，所以由首席大法官罗伯茨主持；第二次在参议院受审时已经不是合众国总统，所以由参议院临时议长主持。两次弹劾都是由众议院多数票启动，但都因为参议院没有三分之二的票而弹劾失败。
Each state has exactly two Senators, but the number of Representatives is dynamically adjusted based on the state's population; states with larger populations have more Representatives. The Senate protects the interests of small states while avoiding the 'tyranny of the majority,' whereas the House of Representatives allows public opinion to be fully represented.
每个州都有且仅有两名参议员（Senators），但众议员（Representatives）是根据州的人口动态调整的，人多的州众议员就多。参议院保障了小州权益的同时避免“多数人暴政”，而众议院让民意能充分地被代表。
Sections 4 and 5 provide for the meeting methods and rules of proceedings of both houses.
第4款、第5款规定了两院的开会方式和议事程序。
议员Members of Congress
Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that Senators and Representatives shall, in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same. It also provides that for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. This immunity also extends to the aides of the members of Congress.
宪法第1条第6款规定除犯有叛国罪、重罪和妨碍治安罪以外，议员在开会期间和往返该院的途中不受逮捕。规定议员在开会期间的言论不应当在其他地方被质疑。这个豁免权也覆盖到议员的助手。
A member's secretary prepared a speech for the member containing defamatory statements about another person. The member publicly made the defamatory statements during a floor debate, and the congressional publisher published the member's statements. The member and the secretary are immune under Section 6, but the publisher is not. Under common law, defamation is a strict liability tort (regardless of fault), but the U.S. Constitution has made some adjustments to the common law: the member's statements are a matter of public concern, and the publisher has some duty to publish the member's statements, so it must be proven that the publisher acted with at least negligence or even actual malice. We will study this in detail in the defamation chapter of the Torts section.
议员的秘书为议员准备了一份演讲，其中有诽谤他人的言论，议员在议会辩论期间（floor dabate）公开了诽谤言论，议会出版商出版了议员的言论。议员和秘书可以得到第6款的豁免，但出版商不可以被豁免。在普通法下，诽谤是严格责任（不论过错）的，但美国宪法对普通法进行了一些调整：议员的言论是大众关心的，且出版商有某种义务出版议员的言论，所以至少要证明出版商有过失甚至恶意。我们会到侵权篇诽谤章节再详细学习。
Members of Congress cannot be impeached, but they can be expelled by a two-thirds majority vote of their respective House. The difference from impeachment is that each House expels its own members independently, without the participation of the other House.
议员不可以被弹劾，但可以被该院三分之二的多数决驱逐（expel a member）。和弹劾的区别是，两院分别驱逐自己的议员，无需另一院的参与。
In 2023, Representative George Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives for fraud and misuse of campaign funds, becoming the first member to be expelled in 20 years.
2023年，众议员乔治·桑托斯因欺诈和滥用竞选资金被众议院驱逐，成为20年来首名被驱逐的议员。
两院制和呈送制Bicameralism and Presentment
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. By inference from this provision, other bills may originate in either the House or the Senate. The other House may then concur, amend, or reject them.
宪法第1条第7款规定所有征税（raising revenue）的议案（bill）应当首先在众议院提出。根据这一条文推断，其他的议案既可以众议院先提出，也可以参议院先提出。然后另外一院同意、修改或反对。
Section 7 also provides that a bill must be passed by both Houses (bicameralism) before it can be presented to the President (presentment). If the President approves, the bill becomes law. If the President objects (veto), the President shall return it, with objections, to the House in which it originated. If that House passes the bill by a two-thirds majority, it shall be sent, together with the President's objections, to the other House, and if approved by a two-thirds majority of that House, the bill becomes law.
第7款还规定两院都通过（bicameralism）的法案才能呈送给总统（presentment）。如果总统批准，议案成为法律。如果总统反对（objection, veto），总统应当注明反对意见退回到首先提出议案的议院，如果该院以三分之二多数通过，则将议案连同总统的反对意见送到另一院，如果另一院也以三分之二的多数通过，该议案成为法律。
Both Houses passed a bill unanimously and stipulated that a presidential veto would be invalid, but the President still vetoed the bill. The bill does not become law; it must be passed again by a two-thirds majority in both Houses to become law.
两院全票通过一个议案并规定总统的退回无效，但总统依然退回了这个议案。该议案并没有成为法律，必须两院再次以三分之二的多数通过才能成为法律。
The Senate originated a bill, the House added some provisions and presented it to the President, and the President then deleted some provisions. The bill does not become law. The bill passed by both Houses and signed by the President must be exactly identical.
参议院提出了一个议案，众议院增加了一些条文并呈报给总统，总统又删去了一些条文。该议案并没有成为法律。两院通过和总统签署的议案必须完全一致。
After both Houses pass a bill and present it to the President, if the President does nothing, the bill becomes law after 10 days (Sundays excepted). However, if Congress adjourns within the 10-day period, the bill must be passed by both Houses again and presented to the President after Congress reconvenes; otherwise, the bill will not become law.
两院通过议案后呈送给总统，总统置之不理，议案10天后（星期日不算）成为法律。但如果国会在10天内休会了，重新开会后要再次两院通过并呈送给总统，否则议案不会成为法律。
The House of Representatives voted to adopt its own rules of procedure and adjournment times, and provided that a motion to vacate the chair (remove the Speaker) could be initiated by a single member. Subsequently, the Speaker was removed simply because the votes in favor of removal were slightly higher. The President has no right to object at this time, because congressional rules of procedure are not laws; they can be determined by each House independently, without the participation of the other House or the President. However, the expulsion of a member is explicitly required by the Constitution to have a two-thirds majority vote of that House, and cannot be stipulated otherwise. The Vice President serving as the President of the Senate is also explicitly mandated by the Constitution and cannot be removed by means other than impeachment.
众议院表决通过了自己的议事规则和休会时间，并规定只要有一个人提出动议就可以发起罢免议长（speaker）的投票。随后，议长仅仅因为支持罢免的票数多了几票就被罢免了。此时总统无权提出反对，因为国会的议事规则不是法律，由两院分别自行规定即可，无需另一院和总统的参与。但驱逐议员则是宪法明确规定需要该院三分之二多数决的，不可以另行规定。副总统是参议院议长也是宪法明确规定的，不可以通过弹劾以外的方式被驱逐。
国会的权力Powers of Congress
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sets forth the powers of Congress, which we will spend a considerable amount of time studying. Congress must adhere to the principle that "what is not authorized by the Constitution is prohibited" when enacting laws; if the Constitution does not explicitly authorize Congress to legislate in a certain area, such a law is invalid even if enacted. The powers granted to Congress under Section 8 include (only the important testable points are listed):
宪法第1条第8款规定了国会的权力，我们会花较大的篇幅学习。国会制定法律需要遵守“宪法无授权即禁止”，如果宪法没有明确授权国会制定某方面的法律，则这样的法律即使制定了也是无效的。第8条授予国会的权力有（只列出了重要的考点）：
We will devote a significant amount of space to separately discussing the powers of taxing (and spending) and commerce. It should be noted that states can also levy taxes and regulate commerce, but several powers are exclusively federal. For example, state governments cannot coin money, issue green cards (permanent resident cards) or citizenship, raise armies, or establish post offices and post roads. State courts also cannot hear immigration, patent, or bankruptcy cases.
我们将花费较多的篇幅单独讲述征税（支出）和贸易这两个权力。需要注意的是州也可以征税和管理贸易，但有几个权力是联邦专属的，比如州政府不能铸造货币，不能发放绿卡（permanent resident card）或公民身份，不能征兵，不能设置邮局和邮路。州法院也不能审理移民法案件、专利、破产案件。
Some powers have not been interpreted as exclusively federal, such as in the areas of commerce, bankruptcy, and trademarks, where states can legislate and regulate as long as they do not conflict with federal law. Even so, federal legislation has covered all aspects of bankruptcy, and bankruptcy cases can only be filed in federal courts. State law carries very little weight in bankruptcy cases.
有些权力并没有被解释为联邦专属的，比如贸易、破产和商标领域，州可以在不和联邦法冲突的时候立法规范。即便如此，联邦立法已经覆盖了破产的方方面面，破产案件也只能在联邦法院提起。州法在破产案件中的权重很小。
In addition to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress can also enact laws under the authorization of the 13th through 19th Amendments. We will study this separately later.
除了宪法第1条第8款，国会还可以在宪法第13-19修正案的授权下制定法律。我们会在后文单独学习。
首都The Capital
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress may accept land ceded by particular states to serve as the seat of the government of the United States. Congress exercises exclusive legislative power over this district, and possesses the same authority over all places purchased within any state for the erection of forts, arsenals, and other needful buildings.
宪法第1条第8款规定国会可以接受个别州让与的土地作为合众国政府的所在地。国会在这里有专属立法权，合众国在各州购置要塞、兵工厂等必要建筑物也有同样的权力。
The seat of the federal government was selected by the first president, George Washington. It originally consisted of a 10-mile square of land donated by Maryland and Virginia, which became Washington, District of Columbia. Because the capital district is not part of any state, it has no senators or voting representatives in Congress.
联邦政府所在地是由第一任总统华盛顿选定的，最开始是由马里兰州和弗吉尼亚州捐赠的边长为10英里的正方形土地，这就是华盛顿哥伦比亚地区（Washington, District of Columbia）。首都地区不属于任何一个州，所以没有参议员和众议员。
征税和支出权力Taxing and Spending Power
Congress's taxing power is scattered across several clauses in Article I. Section 8 requires that duties, imposts, and excises be uniform throughout the United States, while Sections 2 and 9 require that any capitation or other direct tax be apportioned among the states according to their population.
国会的征税权（tax power）散落在第1条好几个款项中。第8款规定征税必须在合众国内部统一（uniform throughout the United States），第9款和第2款规定如果征收人头税（直接税），必须在各州之间按人口的比例征收。
A congressional taxing measure will generally be upheld as constitutional as long as it bears some reasonable relationship to revenue production. Whether an exaction is a tax is determined not by its statutory label, but by its function.
国会的征税法案通常会被认为是合宪的，只要法案的内容与合众国收入的增加有合理的关联即可（reasonable relationship to revenue production）。一项征收是否是税务，并不从法案的字面表述来判断，而是看征收的功能。
The Affordable Care Act mandated that citizens purchase health insurance, imposing a "penalty" on those who failed to do so, despite the government repeatedly denying that it was a new tax. The Supreme Court held that while Congress lacked the power to mandate the purchase of health insurance under the Commerce Clause, it could tax those who did not buy it, thereby upholding the penalty provision as a valid exercise of the taxing power. [National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)]
奥巴马医改法案强制要求公民购买医保，不买的人要缴纳“罚款”，且政府一再否认这是一项新的税种。法院认为国会没有权力强制公民购买医保，但可以对不买医保的人征税，从而判令罚款的部分合宪。[National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)]
Congress's spending power is as broad as its taxing power. Congress may spend to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare, and the definition of "general welfare" is largely left to Congress's discretion. Consequently, Congress can spend for almost any purpose. Note, however, that Congress cannot legislate directly to promote the "general welfare"; it can only do so indirectly through spending, as allowing direct legislation would grant Congress unlimited police power. This is why, although the Constitution does not directly authorize the federal government to regulate education and healthcare (which are traditionally state responsibilities), the federal government still maintains the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Affordable Care Act is a federal statute.
国会花钱（支出）的权力和征税权同样强大，钱可以花在还债（pay the debts）、防务（common defense）和一般福利（general welfare），而一般福利的定义通常由国会说了算。这样看来，国会几乎可以为了一切目的花钱。但注意，国会不能直接立法促进“一般福利”，只能通过支出间接达到，否则就是给了国会无限的权力。这就是为什么宪法没有直接授权联邦管理教育和医疗（教育和医疗通常是州政府的职责），但联邦依然有教育部和卫生部，奥巴马医改也是联邦层面的法案。
Of course, the spending power cannot violate other constitutional provisions. For example, granting tax rebates only to those who praise the government while denying them to those who criticize it would violate the freedom of speech, which we will discuss later. Congress can often attach conditions to federal funding to induce states to act in accordance with federal objectives, but such conditions cannot amount to undue coercion. We will discuss this in detail in the later chapter on federal-state relations.
当然，支出也不能违反其他宪法的条款。比如赞美政府的才能获得退税，批评政府的不能获得退税，这违反了我们后面提到的言论自由。支出通常可以附加条件引诱州按照联邦的要求做某些事情，但这种附加条件不能构成不当的胁迫，我们会在后文联邦和州的关系章节详细论述。
贸易条款The Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause is the first major testing point in Constitutional Law. The text in Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This power has been subsequently refined by the Supreme Court into three categories:
贸易条款（Commerce Clause）是宪法的第一个大考点。其原文是第1条第8款中允许国会管理与外国的、跨州的以及与印第安部落之间的贸易（regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes）。这个权力后来被最高法院细化为：
The first two categories are straightforward to understand. For instance, electricity, flights, television broadcasts, and gasoline—as long as they involve commerce across two or more states, the federal government has the authority to regulate them.
前两项好理解，比如电力、航班、电视、汽油，只要涉及两个或以上州的贸易，联邦都可以管。
During the pandemic, a federal mandate requiring masks in all airports was not unconstitutional, even if the state where the airport was located had no such mask mandate.
疫情期间联邦要求在所有机场佩戴口罩的要求不违宪，即便机场所在的州并没有强制戴口罩的要求。
For the third category, it is important to note that even if an economic activity is entirely intrastate, Congress has the power to regulate it as long as the activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
第三项需要注意的是即便完全是州内的经济活动，只要会对跨州贸易带来实际性影响的行为，国会也有权规范。
Congress may regulate a farmer's wheat production, even if the wheat is grown solely for personal consumption. The Supreme Court reasoned that regulating wheat production could force farmers who intended to be self-sufficient to purchase wheat on the open market, thereby affecting interstate commerce. [Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)]
国会可以规定农民小麦的产出，即使小麦仅仅是供自己使用。最高法院认为，国会规范小麦的生产可以让本来打算自给自足的农民去市场上购买小麦，从而影响跨州贸易。[Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)]
A laundromat serving exclusively an intrastate community must still comply with federal minimum wage laws. This is because if numerous intrastate entities nationwide failed to comply, their aggregate effect would render Congress's regulation of the labor market meaningless.
完全服务州内社区的洗衣店依然要遵守国会的最低工资法案，因为如果全国大大小小的州内实体都不遵守，会形成累积效应让国会对劳动力市场的规范形同虚设。
The Constitution contains no provision prohibiting private racial discrimination, yet Congress enacted legislation forbidding private restaurants and motels from refusing service to Black patrons. The owners of these private establishments argued that Congress lacked the authority to do so. The Supreme Court held that discrimination by motels significantly impeded Black individuals' ability to travel interstate, and that a substantial portion of the food served by the restaurants had moved in interstate commerce. Because these activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress had the power to regulate them. [Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)]
宪法没有条文禁止私人的种族歧视，但国会却立法禁止私人餐馆和旅馆拒绝接待黑人。私人餐厅和旅馆的老板认为国会并没有权力这样做。最高法院认为，旅馆的歧视让黑人在跨州旅行中显著不便，而餐馆购买的食材跨州流动，这些都对跨州贸易产生了实质性影响，所以国会有权立法约束。[Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)]
However, we must be cautious when Congress attempts to use the Commerce Clause to regulate non-economic activities. For example, domestic violence is not an economic activity.
但我们要警惕国会用贸易条款来规范一些非经济的活动，比如家庭暴力就不是经济活动。
A federal statute prohibiting the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school was held unconstitutional because the mere possession of a gun is not a commercial activity and cannot be regulated under the Commerce Clause [United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]. Furthermore, Congress cannot rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate such conduct independently, as that clause must be used in conjunction with another enumerated power.
国会立法禁止学校1000英尺以内持有枪支是违宪的，因为持有枪支本身就不是商业活动，不能用贸易条款[United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]。国会也不能用“必要且合适”的条款规范这类行为，因为该条款必须和国会的其他法源搭配使用。
Through the above examples, we reiterate a fundamental constitutional principle: Congress may only legislate within the scope of its enumerated powers, which include those found in Article I and several amendments we will study later. When tackling exam questions involving a federal statute, you must first determine whether Congress has the enumerated power to enact the legislation, and then analyze whether it violates any other constitutional provisions. Because there are so many laws that Congress and the states are prohibited from enacting, as we progress in our studies, it is easy to become overly focused on these prohibitive clauses and forget that there must first be a constitutional source of power before Congress can legislate.
通过上例，我们再次强调宪法的重要原则：国会只能在宪法授权的范围内立法，这包括目前学习的第1条和后文学习的几条修正案。在做题时，我们看到国会立法，首先要看国会有没有这个权利立法，然后再看它是否违反宪法的其他条款。因为国会和各州被禁止订立的法律太多，我们越学到后来，可能会越聚焦在那些禁止性条款，而忽略了必须要先有宪法法源，才可以进行对应立法。
Regarding the issue of abortion, both the Democratic and Republican parties have proposed working with Congress to either codify abortion rights or ban abortion nationwide. If either party were to win the White House, secure majorities in both chambers, and successfully pass such a bill, would it be constitutional?
堕胎议题中，民主党和共和党分别提出过要与国会合作在全美允许堕胎、禁止堕胎，如果他们真的入主白宫并在两院都取得多数席位，法案顺利通过，是否合宪？
If Congress were to pass a law prohibiting aliens from practicing law, we must first consider whether Congress has the constitutionally enumerated power to do so. If not, the law would be unconstitutional even if passed by both chambers and signed by the President. However, we can easily find two clauses supporting Congress's authority in this regard: Congress has the power to regulate immigration and foreign commerce, which includes trade in services or the labor market (refer to the minimum wage case above). Once we identify the source of power, we then consider whether Congress has violated other constitutional provisions, such as whether it improperly infringes upon state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment, or whether it violates due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. As we will learn later, a state cannot legislate to prohibit aliens from practicing law, because doing so would violate the Equal Protection Clause.
如果国会立法禁止外国人担任律师，要先考虑国会是否有宪法授权的权利这么做？如果没有，即使两院通过、总统签字，也依然是违宪的。但我们可以很轻松地找到两个条款支持国会有这样的权利：国会可以管理移民，也可以管理国际贸易，这其中就包括了服务贸易，或者说劳动力市场（参考上文最低工资案）。在找到法源之后，我们再考虑国会是否违反宪法的其他条款，比如是否违反第10修正案不当侵犯了州权，或者是否违反第5修正案的正当权利。我们后文会学习到，州就不能立法禁止外国人担任律师，因为这违反了平等保护。
三种审查标准Three Levels of Scrutiny
Before discussing what the government is prohibited from doing, we must first introduce the most important concept in Constitutional Law. When a court reviews whether a law is constitutional, the first issue to discuss is the standard of review to apply. The Supreme Court has established three standards:
在讲政府被禁止的事项之前，我们先要介绍宪法课最重要的知识点。法院在审查某条法律是否合宪的时候，首先要讨论的就是用什么样的标准去审查，最高法院确立了三种标准：
The standard of review itself is not a specific testable topic in isolation, but it runs through the entire Constitutional Law section, and we will gradually learn how to apply it later. However, sometimes we can answer a question correctly even if we do not know which standard to apply.
审查标准本身不是一个具体的考点，但贯穿宪法篇全篇，我们会在后面陆续学习它如何适用。但有时候即使我们不知道应该适用哪一种标准，也可以做对题。
A state government decides to ban cigarette advertisements within 1,000 feet (300 meters) of schools. Tobacco companies challenge its constitutionality, and the question asks what standard the court will use to review this law. Three of the options are: requiring the tobacco companies to prove the law is not narrowly tailored to the interest of protecting children's health; requiring the tobacco companies to prove the law is not substantially related to a government interest; and requiring the government to prove there is a rational relationship between the law and a government interest. These three options are obviously incorrect because the burden of proof is reversed. We might not know whether the government's interest in protecting children's health is compelling, important, or legitimate, nor might we know which standard of review applies in this situation, but we can directly choose the fourth option.
某州政府决定禁止在学校1000英尺（300米）范围内出现香烟广告，烟商提出合宪审查，问法院审查这条法律的标准是什么。三个选项分别是要求烟商证明该法律不是为保护儿童健康的利益量身定做的、要求烟商证明该法律没有与政府利益实质相关，以及让政府证明该法律和政府利益之间有合理关联。这三个选项都是明显错误的，因为举证责任写反了。我们或许不知道政府保护儿童健康到底是紧迫的利益、重要的利益还是一般的利益，更不知道关于这种情况应该适用哪一种审查标准，但可以直接选第四个选项。
It is very difficult for a law to survive strict scrutiny, and very easy to survive rational basis review. In the past, when answering questions, one could assume that a law surviving strict scrutiny was definitely wrong, or a law failing rational basis was definitely wrong, but modern exam questions increasingly like to test exceptions.
法律很难通过严格标准的审查，很容易通过理性标准的审查。以往做题可以认为通过严格审查必错，或者通不过理性审查必错，但现今的考题越来越喜欢考例外。
Returning to the previous example of the law banning cigarette advertisements, if strict scrutiny were applied, even if protecting children's health could be proven to be a compelling interest, the law would not survive because there are less restrictive measures: for example, hiding the cigarettes behind the counter so that only adults who can accurately name the brand can purchase them. A simpler way to make it fail strict scrutiny is to question the government on why the limit is 1,000 feet instead of a smaller 800 feet, or why it did not more precisely map out areas frequented by children. However, if rational basis review were applied, even a total ban on cigarette advertisements could survive: the person challenging the law would need to prove that banning cigarette ads has absolutely no relationship to the government's interest in protecting public health, which is obviously impossible to do. If intermediate scrutiny is applied, both sides have a chance of winning; although "least restrictive means" is not required, courts also dislike arbitrary, baseless, one-size-fits-all approaches. In this case, the government ultimately failed to survive intermediate scrutiny. [Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)]
还是上例中禁止香烟广告的法律，如果使用严格审查，即使能证明保护儿童健康利益是紧迫的也无法通过，因为还有侵害更小的措施：比如将香烟藏起来，只有能准确点出香烟品牌的成年人才能购买。更简单让它无法通过严格标准审查的办法是，质问政府为什么是1000英尺，而不是更小的800英尺，或者细致地划分小孩出没的区域。但如果使用理性审查，哪怕全面禁止香烟广告也可以通过：挑战这部法律的人需要证明禁止香烟广告和政府保护人民健康的利益一点关系都没有，这显然无法做到。使用中等审查能否通过则双方都有赢面，虽然不要求“最小侵害”，但法院也不喜欢武断的没有依据的一刀切。在这个案例中，政府最终没能通过中等标准的审查。[Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)]
After a racial conflict breaks out in a prison, temporarily segregating inmates by race is lawful. We might not know which standard of review to apply, but even under strict scrutiny, it seems to be the least restrictive means (temporary segregation) narrowly tailored to a compelling interest (prison security).
监狱里不同人种之间起冲突后，短暂将监狱的人按照种族分开是合法的。我们可能不知道用哪种审查标准，但即使是用严格审查，似乎也是为了紧迫的利益（监狱安全）量身定做的最小侵害的手段（短暂分开）。
A state government prohibits city governments from legislating to protect homosexuals, claiming it is to "better protect other groups that deserve protection." This constitutes legislation born of animus. Although nominally subject to rational basis review, such animus-based legislation does not serve a legitimate government interest and therefore cannot survive scrutiny. This type of rational basis review is also known as "rational basis with bite".
州政府禁止市政府为了保护同性恋立法，声称是为了“更好地保护其他应该受保护的群体”，这属于出于敌意（animus）的立法。虽然名义上适用理性审查标准，但这种出于敌意的立法不满足正当的政府利益，因此无法通过审查。这种理性审查也叫做“带有牙齿的理性审查”（rational basis with bite）。
国会和州禁止做的事项Prohibitions on Congress and the States
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution sets forth actions prohibited to Congress, and Section 10 sets forth actions prohibited to the states. We list the important testable points:
宪法第1条第9款规定了国会被禁止的行为，第10款规定了各州被禁止的行为，我们列出重要考点：
| Matter | Federal (Congress) | State |
|---|---|---|
| Bill of attainder | Prohibited | Prohibited |
| Ex post facto law | Prohibited | Prohibited |
| Export tax | Prohibited | Prohibited |
| Import tax | Not prohibited | Prohibited |
| Law impairing the obligation of contracts | Not prohibited | Prohibited |
| 事项 | 联邦（国会） | 州 |
|---|---|---|
| bill of attainder | 禁止 | 禁止 |
| ex post facto law | 禁止 | 禁止 |
| 出口税 | 禁止 | 禁止 |
| 进口税 | 不禁止 | 禁止 |
| 损害合同义务的法律 | 不禁止 | 禁止 |
We explain bills of attainder and ex post facto laws through a few cases.
我们通过几个案例来解释bill of attainder和ex post facto law.
Congressional legislation making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as a union officer is a bill of attainder—a legislative act that substitutes for a trial—and is void for being unconstitutional [United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)]. However, non-punitive laws are treated more leniently; even legislation requiring a former president to turn over documents from his time in office, specifically naming former President Nixon, does not violate the Constitution [Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)].
国会立法规定共产党员在工会担任职务是犯罪行为，这是用立法代替审判的剥夺公民权的法案（bill of attainder），因违宪而无效[United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)]。但非惩罚性的法律要宽松一些，即使在立法要求前总统交出履职过程中的文件，并点名要求前总统尼克松这么做，也不违反宪法[Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)]。
California passed a law extending the statute of limitations for child sex offenses. The appellant, whose statute of limitations had already expired, was prosecuted anew. This is an ex post facto law and is void for being unconstitutional. [Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003)]
加州通过一项法律延长了针对儿童性犯罪的追诉时效，上诉人本来已经过了追诉时效，现在又重新被追诉。这是追溯既往的法律（ex post facto law），因违宪而无效。[Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003)]
Note, however, that ex post facto laws refer exclusively to criminal punishments. Other laws, such as tax laws, that do not deprive individuals of fundamental rights, only need to pass rational basis review even if applied retroactively.
但注意，追溯既往的法律单指刑罚。其他的法律，在没有剥夺人们基本权利的情况下，比如收税，即使是回溯适用，只需要通过理性标准审查。
Let us elaborate on "laws impairing the obligation of contracts." First, there is no such prohibition at the federal level. Second, the prohibition applies to state legislatures passing such laws; it does not prohibit state courts from rendering such judgments.
我们再详细展开说一下“损害合同义务的法律”（law impairing the obligation of contracts）。首先，联邦层面没有这个禁止。其次，禁止的是州议会通过这样的法律，并没有禁止州法院作出这样的判决。
Finally, laws impairing the obligation of contracts are not absolutely prohibited; they are permissible as long as they pass a "substantial impairment test" that is akin to intermediate scrutiny.
最后，损害合同义务的法律并没有被绝对禁止，只要符合类似中等标准审查的“实质性损害测试”即可。
During the Great Depression, a state legislature could pass a law temporarily halting the foreclosure of homes for defaulted loans. [Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)]
大萧条期间，州议会可以通过法律暂缓还不起贷款的房子被拍卖。[Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)]
However, if the state government itself is a party to the contract, the law must pass a test akin to strict scrutiny, requiring it to be "reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose."
但如果州政府自己是合同的一方，则必须通过类似严格标准审查的“为了实现重要公共目的而合理且必要的”（reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose）测试。
休眠的贸易条款The Dormant Commerce Clause
The actions prohibited to the government are far more numerous than those set forth in Article I, Sections 9 and 10. It can be said that the history of constitutional amendments is a history of limiting government power. We will study the important constitutional amendments later.
政府被禁止的事项远远比第1条9-10款规定的多，可以说宪法的修正史就是限制政府权力的历史，我们会在后面学到宪法重要的修正案。
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate international and interstate commerce, but no provision expressly prohibits states from concurrently participating in the regulation of commerce. As we will learn later, when federal and state laws conflict, federal law preempts state law. Does this mean that, in the absence of relevant federal legislation, a state can freely regulate international and interstate commerce involving that state, just as it regulates police, education, and healthcare?
宪法第8款授权国会管理国际贸易、跨州贸易，但并没有任何条款禁止州共同参与贸易的管理。我们后面还会学到，联邦法和州法冲突的时候，优先适用联邦法。那是不是说，在联邦法没有相关条款的时候，州就可以像管理警察、教育、医疗那样任意管理涉及该州的国际贸易、跨州贸易呢？
The Framers of the Constitution believed that the commerce power should be exclusively federal. Although this idea was ultimately not explicitly written into the Constitution, the Justices have held that the Commerce Clause has a "dormant" aspect. That is, while authorizing Congress to regulate commerce, it simultaneously prohibits state governments from discriminating against out-of-state goods or imposing an undue burden on international or interstate commerce. This is known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," also referred to as the "Negative Commerce Clause." It is not an explicit provision of the Constitution but is inferred from the Commerce Clause.
订立宪法的先贤们认为贸易权应该是联邦专属的，虽然这个思想最后没有明文写入宪法，但大法官们认为贸易条款有其“休眠”的一面，即授权国会管理贸易的同时，禁止州政府歧视外州的货物，或者对国际贸易、跨州贸易施加过重的负担（undue burden），这就是“休眠的贸易条款”（Dormant Commerce Clause），也叫做“消极的贸易条款”（Negative Commerce Clause）。它并不是宪法的明文规定，而是从贸易条款中推论出来的。
Unless Congress explicitly permits a state to do so under the Commerce Clause, a law that discriminates against out-of-state goods (or services) must demonstrate that:
除非国会通过贸易条款明文允许州如此做，否则歧视外州货物（服务）的法律需要证明：
This formulation is very similar to strict scrutiny, and in some cases, the Supreme Court has simply used the language of strict scrutiny directly.
这个表述很像严格标准审查，在一些案件中，最高法院干脆直接用了严格标准审查的表述。
A law requiring a person to reside in the state for at least two years to obtain a liquor license is unconstitutional, as it cannot pass strict scrutiny (if a state law discriminates against out-of-state goods or nonresident economic actors, the law can be sustained only on a showing that it is narrowly tailored to advance a legitimate local purpose). [Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)]
要求必须在本州居住2年以上才能获得售酒执照的法律违宪，它不能通过严格标准审查（if a state law discriminates against out-of-state goods or nonresident economic actors, the law can be sustained only on a showing that it is narrowly tailored to advance a legitimate local purpose）。[Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)]
Merely raising the sales tax on out-of-state milk is unconstitutional. A law requiring that in-state garbage be processed by an in-state waste processing facility is unconstitutional [C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994)]. Imposing an additional tax on hazardous waste transported from out-of-state for processing in-state is unconstitutional [Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality, 511 U.S. 93 (1994)]. A law prohibiting in-state mineral water merchants from obtaining water from out-of-state sources is unconstitutional. A law requiring in-state cantaloupes to be packed in-state before being sold out-of-state is unconstitutional (as it discriminates against out-of-state packers) [Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970)].
仅仅提高外州牛奶的销售税是违宪的。要求本州垃圾必须由本州的垃圾处理机构来处理的法律违宪 [C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383 (1994)]。对外州运往本州进行处理的有害垃圾征额外的税违宪 [Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality, 511 U.S. 93 (1994)] 。禁止州内矿泉水商家从外州获取水源的法律违宪。要求州内哈密瓜先在州内打包好再售往外州的法律违宪（歧视外州打包商）[Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970)]。
If Congress authorizes state governments to tax out-of-state radioactive waste, a state law passed to that effect is constitutional. [New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)]
国会授权州政府对外州的核污染垃圾征税，如果该州通过相关的法律则合宪。[New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)]
If the state government itself is a market participant, it is generally not subject to the restrictions of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
如果州政府自己是市场的参与者（state as market participant），通常则不受贸易条款的限制。
A regulation allowing only in-state contractors to bid on the construction of a state government building is not unconstitutional.
只有州内的建筑商才能竞标建造州政府大楼的规定并不违宪。
Granting tax exemptions only to bonds issued within the state is not unconstitutional; the bond proceeds serve a public function and cannot simply be viewed as local protectionism. [Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008)]
只给州内发售的债券税收优惠不违宪，债券收益具有公共职能，并不能简单地视为地方保护主义。[Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328 (2008)]
However, even when the state government is a market participant, it can only protect in-state residents within its own immediate transaction; it cannot impose conditions that discriminate against downstream businesses.
但即使州政府自己的市场的参与者，也只能在自己的环节保护州内居民，不能和对方约定歧视下游（downstream）商家。
A state government may require that only in-state buyers can purchase state-owned timber, but it cannot condition the sale on the requirement that the timber be processed at an in-state mill before being shipped out of state. [South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984)]
州政府可以要求只有州内的采购商才能采购州政府拥有的木材，但不能和采购商约定只能通过州内的加工厂加工木材后才能销往州外。[South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984)]
Because laws discriminating against out-of-state commerce are so easily found unconstitutional, state governments began enacting seemingly neutral laws to protect domestic enterprises. In such cases, we require that the burden imposed on interstate commerce not exceed the benefits brought by the nondiscriminatory law. The latest and more deferential approach to state power is that, as long as a nondiscriminatory law is not intentionally designed to impede out-of-state enterprises for the purpose of building up domestic commerce, it generally does not violate the Constitution.
歧视外州的法律太容易违宪，所以州政府们开始立一些看似中性的法律来保护本土企业。这时我们要求对跨州贸易施加的负担不能超过非歧视性法律带来的收益。最新且对州权更尊重的解释方法是，只要不是冲着发展州内商业而刻意地限制外州企业，非歧视性法律通常不违反宪法。
Imposing a quarantine fee of a few cents on every poultry processed within the state is constitutional because it regulates purely intrastate activity, does not discriminate against out-of-state poultry, and does not place an undue burden on interstate commerce.
给州内加工的每一只家禽征收几分钱的检疫费用是合宪的，因为这规范的完全是州内的行为，没有歧视外州家禽，也没有给跨州贸易带来过重的负担。
Although it caused deep divisions among the nine Justices, a law requiring pork sold within the state to be raised in a humane but uncommon manner does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, even if its practical effect forces almost all out-of-state pork producers to change their practices or lose access to the state's market [National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. ___ (2023)]. The controlling opinion adopted a significantly different interpretive approach from the past, holding that the Dormant Commerce Clause is primarily aimed at discriminatory laws, and the original intent of the pork act was not to restrict out-of-state businesses to promote in-state ones. "While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops merchants may sell is not on that list." Currently, the pork act is still facing other constitutional challenges.
虽然在9名大法官之间产生了巨大的分歧，但要求州内销售的猪肉必须用人道但不常见的方式圈养的法律并不违反休眠的贸易条款，即使从效果上让几乎所有外州的养猪商都不得不进行改革，否则无法将猪肉销往该州[National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. ___ (2023)]。控制性意见采用了和以往截然不同的解释方法，认为休眠的贸易条款主要针对歧视性法律，且猪肉法案的初衷并非为了限制外州企业以发展州内企业。“虽然宪法解决许多重大问题，但商人被允许出售的猪排类型不在此列。”目前，猪肉法案还在面临其他宪法挑战。
We must always remember that the "awake" Commerce Clause is naturally broader than the "dormant" Commerce Clause. Therefore, if Congress passes legislation authorizing states to enact certain laws regulating out-of-state goods, states may enact such legislation without being subject to strict scrutiny or balancing tests.
我们始终要记得“醒来的”贸易条款自然比“休眠的”贸易条款要大，所以如果国会立法允许州制定怎样的法律规范外州货物，州就可以制定这样的立法，不受严格标准审查或者平衡测试的限制。
When answering multiple-choice questions, we should not confuse the standards for discriminatory laws with those for nondiscriminatory laws.
在做选择题的时候，我们不要把歧视性法律的标准和非歧视性弄混了。
If nondiscriminatory laws cannot place an undue burden on interstate commerce, discriminatory laws certainly cannot either. Therefore, if a discriminatory law is unconstitutional and you cannot find a more appropriate answer, "places an undue burden on interstate commerce" might be the correct choice. Conversely, if an option states that a discriminatory law is constitutional because it "does not place an undue burden on interstate commerce," it is definitely an incorrect choice. If a discriminatory law is constitutional, it can only be for one of the following three reasons: 1. The state government itself is a market participant, such as procurement for a state government cafeteria; 2. Congress has explicitly authorized such discrimination; 3. The discrimination furthers an important, non-economic state interest and there are no reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives available.
非歧视性法律尚且不能给跨州贸易带来过重的负担，歧视性法律当然更不允许。所以，如果一个歧视性法律违宪，你又找不到更合适的答案时，“给跨州贸易带来过重的负担”就可能是正确选项。但反过来，如果选项认为歧视性法律不违宪是因为“没有给跨州贸易带来过重的负担”，就一定是错误的选项。如果歧视性法律不违宪，只可能是下面3个原因之一：1. 州政府自己是市场参与者，比如州政府食堂的采购；2. 国会明确允许了这种歧视；3. 该种歧视是为了非经济的利益，且除了歧视别无他法。
California law prohibits the in-state sale of pork from pigs confined in a cruel manner that restricts their movement (the California pork case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross). This law does not discriminate against out-of-state businesses because it treats in-state and out-of-state pork producers equally. For such nondiscriminatory laws, they are unconstitutional only if the burden imposed on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. If a question tests the reason why such a nondiscriminatory law is unconstitutional, an option stating "there are other reasonable alternatives to protect the state's interest" is an incorrect choice, because that applies to discriminatory laws.
加州法律规定禁止在州内销售被残忍限制活动空间的猪肉（加州猪肉案 National Pork Producers Council v. Ross），这条法律并没有歧视外州企业，因为对本州和外州的猪肉生产商一视同仁。对于这类非歧视性法律，只有当其对跨州贸易施加的负担明显超过了给本州带来的利益时，才会违宪。如果题目中考查这类非歧视性法律违宪的原因，选项中说“还有其他办法来保护州的利益”就是错误选项，因为那是针对歧视性法律的叙述。
调查权Investigatory Power
The Constitution does not expressly provide for Congress's investigatory power, but it is a widely exercised power. We will use it to conclude the chapter on Congress under Article I of the Constitution.
宪法没有明文规定国会的调查权（investigatory power），但这是一个被广泛运用的权力。我们将其作为宪法第1条国会章节的结尾。
Good legislation is based on a comprehensive understanding of information. Therefore, Congress can subpoena witnesses to testify on relevant matters and use contempt of Congress to imprison those who refuse to appear or testify; we learned in the Criminal Law section that courts have a similar power. This does not mean that witnesses must answer every question posed by Congress. In the Constitutional Law section, we need to learn that the content of the questions must be pertinent to the matter under investigation. We will learn other aspects in the Criminal Procedure and Evidence sections.
好的立法以对信息的全面了解为基础。所以国会可以传唤（subpoena）证人就相关事项作证，并用藐视国会（contempt of congress）将拒绝到场或作证的人关押，我们在刑法篇学过法院也有类似的权力。这并不代表证人需要回答国会提出的一切问题，在宪法篇，我们需要学习的是问题的内容必须和调查的事项相关（pertinent），在刑诉篇、证据法篇我们还会学习到其他的内容。
宪法第2条Article II of the Constitution
总统The President
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution vests the executive power in the President.
宪法的第2条第1款规定行政权归总统所有。
The President may assign federal marshals to protect a threatened member of Congress (if the member consents).
总统可以指派联邦警员保护被威胁的议员（如果议员同意的话）。
Section 1 also provides that the President's term of office is four years. It sets forth the election, inauguration, and compensation of the President. These provisions were later refined and perfected by subsequent amendments.
第1款还规定了总统的任期为4年。规定了总统的选举、就任、报酬。这些被后来的修正案细化和完善。
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
宪法的第2条第2款规定了总统是军队的统帅。
The President has absolute immunity from civil damages liability for official acts, and is immune from criminal prosecution before being impeached. However, civil lawsuits arising from the President's actions prior to taking office do not have to wait until the President leaves office to be filed [Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)], and immunity from criminal prosecution does not mean the President is exempt from complying with subpoenas issued in criminal investigations [Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)].
总统的官方行为免于被民事诉讼，在被弹劾之前也免于刑事起诉。但总统上任前的行为导致的民事纠纷不必等到总统卸任后再行起诉[Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)]，被免于刑事起诉也不意味着总统可以不用遵守一切刑事调查中签发的传票[Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)]。
赦免Pardons
The President may grant pardons or reprieves for offenses, except in cases of impeachment.
总统可以赦免（pardon）或暂缓（reprieve）除弹劾案以外的罪行。
The President cannot pardon state offenses. Currently, Donald Trump has been indicted in New York and Georgia, and the President cannot pardon these two indictments. The Governor of New York could pardon the New York indictment, but New York is a Democratic stronghold. Although Georgia has a Republican governor, the state does not allow the governor to directly pardon crimes.
总统不可以赦免州法罪名。目前，特朗普分别被纽约州和佐治亚州起诉，总统并不能赦免这两个起诉。纽约州的州长可以赦免其中一个起诉，但纽约州是民主党的地盘。佐治亚州虽然是共和党州长，但该州不允许州长直接赦免罪行。
Even if a governor can directly pardon a crime, they must consider the political consequences of doing so. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon for 'all offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed' during his presidency was a major reason for Ford's failure to win re-election. However, this pardon seems to indicate that a pardon does not have to be for a crime for which one has already been convicted; it can also be for crimes that are undiscovered, uncharged, or currently being prosecuted.
即使州长可以直接赦免罪行，他也要考虑这么做带来的政治后果。福特赦免尼克松“担任总统期间对合众国犯下的或可能犯下的任何罪行”是福特竞选连任失败的一个重要原因。但这次赦免似乎表明赦免不必是已经被定罪的罪名，也可以是尚未发现、尚未起诉或者正在起诉的罪名。
Although it is highly unlikely to happen, Joe Biden could pardon Trump for the other two charges indicted by federal grand juries and tried in federal courts: the Capitol riot incitement case and the classified documents leak case. The latter involves allegations regarding Trump's conduct after leaving office. If Trump were to produce a self-pardon letter, it would raise two interesting constitutional questions: whether a President can pardon himself, and whether he can pardon past crimes that have not yet been charged.
虽然大概率不会这么做，但拜登可以赦免特朗普另外两个被联邦大陪审团起诉、在联邦法院审理的罪名：煽动国会山暴乱案和泄露合众国机密文件案。后者是指控特朗普卸任之后的行为。如果特朗普掏出对自己的赦免信，会带来两个有趣的宪法问题：总统是否可以赦免自己，以及是否可以赦免尚未起诉的过去罪行。
Even if a President does not (or cannot) preemptively pardon himself, after leaving office, his official acts during his presidency are immune from criminal prosecution, whereas his unofficial acts are not [Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)].
即使总统没有（或者不可以）预先赦免自己，在总统离任之后，其担任总统期间的官方行为免于被刑事诉讼，但个人行为不会[Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)]。
Whether 'inciting the Capitol riot' constitutes an official or unofficial act remains an unresolved question, but pressuring the Vice President to refuse to certify the election results is an official act, for which a former President should not be criminally prosecuted after leaving office. Some worry that this precedent will allow presidents to act recklessly. However, supporters argue that the Constitution provides ample tools to prevent such scenarios: Congress can impeach the President, and the Vice President can join forces with cabinet secretaries to invoke the 25th Amendment to assume power. After Trump's pressure, Vice President Mike Pence still certified the election results as required by the Constitution, which precisely demonstrates that even if a President's official acts are immune from criminal prosecution, they remain subject to numerous constraints.
“煽动国会山暴乱”是否官方行为还是个人行为依然是悬而未决的问题，但给副总统施压拒绝认证大选结果是官方行为，不应该在离任之后因此被刑事起诉。有人担心，这个判例会让总统胡作非为。但支持者认为宪法提供了足够多的工具避免这种情况发生：国会可以弹劾总统，副总统还可以联合各部部长夺权。在特朗普施压后，副总统彭斯依然按照宪法要求认证了大选结果，恰恰说明总统的官方行为即使豁免刑事诉讼，也依然受到诸多限制。
缔约Treaties
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President has the power to make treaties with foreign nations, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. Treaties have the same legal effect as federal laws.
宪法第2条第2款规定总统可以和外国订立盟约（treaties），盟约需要参议院三分之二多数通过。盟约和法律具有同等的效力。
To reiterate, Congress can only legislate within the scope of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and its relatively broad powers are limited to commerce, taxation, spending, immigration, federal territories, and federal agencies, among others. However, treaties are not subject to such limitations; they are governed by Article II rather than Article I of the Constitution, and lack similar structural constraints [Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924)]. Whether a treaty must strictly relate to matters of 'international concern' remains an unresolved issue; the Supreme Court has merely suggested that a treaty should at least reasonably relate to international affairs or negotiations. In fact, the Supreme Court has never struck down any treaty as unconstitutional.
再次强调，国会只能在宪法明确授权的范围内立法，其相对广泛的权力只有贸易、征税、支出、移民、联邦领地和联邦机构等。但盟约却不必，它规定在宪法第2条而不是第1条，也没有框架约束[Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 US 332 (1924)]。盟约是否一定要和国际事务相关（international concern）是一个尚未解决的问题，最高法院仅仅建议盟约至少要合理关切到国际事务或国际谈判。事实上，最高法院从来没有判任何的盟约违宪。
On the issue of abortion, even if passed by both chambers and signed by the President, a federal bill allowing or banning abortion nationwide might be unconstitutional for lacking a constitutional basis of power. However, the President could sign a treaty with a foreign government regarding the matter, which would only require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect.
堕胎议题中，即使两院通过、总统签字，在全美允许/禁止堕胎的法案或许会因为没有法源而违宪。但总统可以和外国政府签一个盟约，并在参议院2/3多数通过即可。
Treaties and federal laws hold equal status; in the event of a conflict, the one adopted last in time prevails (the 'last-in-time' rule).
盟约和法律具有同等地位，按照时间顺序，后订立（通过）的要优先先订立（通过）的盟约（法律）。
Congress may pass legislation that overrides a prior treaty, even if doing so violates international law.
国会可以立法推翻盟约，即使这违反了国际法。
任命Appointments
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President may appoint ambassadors, public ministers, Supreme Court justices, and all other officers of the United States established by law, but this requires the advice and consent (a simple majority vote) of the Senate.
宪法第2条第2款规定总统可以任命大使、部长、最高法院法官和其他国会通过法律设立的官员，但需要参议院的意见（advice）和二分之一多数的通过（consent）。
If Congress were to pass a law allowing the Secretary of State to unilaterally appoint ambassadors, it would be unconstitutional. First, it infringes upon the President's appointment power: the Constitution explicitly vests the power to nominate principal officers in the President, not anyone else. Second, for the appointment of ambassadors, public ministers, and justices, the Senate must provide its 'advice and consent'; this is a constitutional requirement that cannot be waived.
国会立法规定国务卿（Secretary of State）可以单独任命大使，这是违宪的。首先，它侵犯了总统的任命权：宪法明确将提名权交给总统而不是其他人。其次，对于大使、部长和法官的任命，参议院还必须提意见（advice），这是义务，不能免除。
Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
国会可以制定法律将任命下级官员（inferior officers）的权力指派给总统单独一人、各级法院或者各部部长。
An 'inferior officer' generally means that there is at least one other officer between them and the President, rather than reporting directly to the President.
下级官员的意思是他和总统之间至少还有别的官员，而不是直接对总统汇报。
外交Foreign Affairs
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the President shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers. The powers to make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and receive ambassadors are interpreted as granting the President broad authority in foreign affairs.
宪法第2条第3款规定总统负责接见大使和公使。缔约、任命大使、接见大使这些权力被解读为总统在外交方面有广泛的权力。
Congress may not require the President to list Israel as the place of birth on the passport of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem; how to designate it is to be determined by the executive branch led by the President. Recognizing foreign territory is a matter on which the nation must speak with one voice. That voice is the President's. [Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015)]
国会不得要求总统必须将出生在耶路撒冷的美国公民的护照上标注为出生在以色列，具体如何标注由总统领导的行政分支自行决定。承认外国领土是一件全国必须用同一个声音说话的问题。这个声音是总统的。[Zivotofsky v. Kerry , 576 US 1 (2015)]
执行法律Execution of Laws
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (the Take Care Clause). Even if the President disagrees with a law, they cannot refuse to enforce it.
宪法第2条第3款规定总统要监督法律的忠实执行（Take Care Clause）。即使总统不同意法律，也不能违背它的执行。
When Congress passes a law appropriating funds for a specific project, the President cannot refuse to spend the money, nor can they divert the funds to other uses.
国会通过法律将钱花在特定的项目上，总统不能拒绝花掉这些钱，更不能把该款项挪作他用。
权力的分立Separation of Powers
Separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches must each perform their respective duties and check one another; they cannot usurp or encroach upon the powers of the other branches.
权力的分立（separation of powers）是美国宪法的重要原则。立法、行政和司法权应当各司其职，相互监督，不能打压其他分支的权力，也不能越俎代庖。
Executing the law is the duty of the executive branch. Congress cannot assign the execution of laws to its members or to judges, nor can it form a commission composed of both legislators and executive officials to jointly execute the law.
执行法律是行政分支的职责，国会不能让议员或者法官来执行法律，或者把议员和行政分支的官员组成一个委员会来一同执行法律。
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, if Congress were to enact a law stripping the Supreme Court of all its appellate jurisdiction, the best answer is that it would be invalid for violating the principle of separation of powers.
宪法第3条第2款明确规定国会有权限制最高法院的上诉管辖权，但如果国会制定法律剥夺最高法院的一切上诉管辖权，最佳答案是违反权力的分立原则而无效。
Neither Congress nor the President can interfere with final judgments. If a large number of cases are dismissed by courts due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, Congress may amend the statute of limitations to affect unfiled (or even pending) cases, but it cannot require courts to reopen cases that have already been dismissed. [Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995)]
国会和总统都不能影响已经生效的判决，如果因诉讼时效经过导致大量案件被法院驳回起诉，议会虽然可以修改诉讼时效影响尚未起诉（甚至正在审理）的案子，但不能要求法院重新审理已经被驳回的案子。[Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995)]
However, Congress may delegate its power to the executive or judicial branches, provided it is not a power uniquely confined to Congress by the Constitution (such as impeachment or declaring war). When delegating power, Congress must provide an "intelligible principle"; otherwise, it constitutes an unconstitutional delegation.
但国会可以将权力指派给行政或者司法分支，只要不是宪法规定的国会专属权力（比如弹劾、宣战等）。国会在授权时必须提供“明确的指导原则”（intelligible principle），否则构成违宪授权。
Congress may authorize the President and executive agencies to promulgate rules and regulations to detail the execution of laws. Congress may also authorize the courts to establish sentencing guidelines.
国会可以授权总统和部门制定规章制度来细化法律的执行。国会也可以授权法院制定量刑指南。
Next, let's use an example to intuitively understand some principles of the separation of powers.
接下来，我们用一个例子直观地感受权利的分立中的一些原理。
Day 1: Congress passes the "Prevention of Theft Act," which provides that: 1. Theft of a substantial amount shall be punishable by death; 2. The definition of "substantial amount" shall be detailed by rules issued by the Speaker of the House, the President, and the Attorney General. Before the President signs it, this is merely a bill; after the President signs it, it officially becomes a law.
第1天，国会通过了《防止盗窃法》（Prevention of Theft Act），规定1. 盗窃数额较大的判处死刑，2. 什么叫做数额较大，由众议院议长、总统、司法部长出台规则细化。在总统签字之前，这只是议案（bill），总统签字后，正式成为了法律（law）。
Day 2: The President issues an Executive Order pursuant to Section 2 of the Act, stipulating that only amounts exceeding $1 billion are considered a "substantial amount." This is a reasonable exercise of the President's executive power within the legal framework.
第2天，总统根据法案第2条出台行政命令（Executive Order），规定超过10亿美元才叫数额较大。这是总统在法律框架内合理行使自己的行政权。
Day 3: The Attorney General, believing the President to be too extreme, issues the "Prevention of Theft Rule" pursuant to Section 2 of the Act, stipulating that amounts exceeding $10 million are considered a "substantial amount." This is a reasonable exercise of the Attorney General's rulemaking power within the legal framework.
第3天，司法部长认为总统过于偏激，根据法案第2条出台《防止盗窃规则》（Prevention of Theft Rule），规定超过1000万美元才叫数额较大。这是部长在法律框架内合理行使自己的规则制订权（rulemaking）。
Day 4: The President fires the Attorney General, which is a valid exercise of the President's removal power. Next, the President would instruct the Attorney General to promulgate a new "Prevention of Theft Rule," or revoke their own Executive Order, to avoid conflicting regulations within the executive branch.
第4天，总统开除了司法部长，这是合理行使自己的解职权。接下来，总统会指示司法部长颁布新的《防止盗窃规则》，或者废除自己的行政命令，避免自家人的规定冲突。
Day 5: The Speaker of the House, feeling that both the President and the Attorney General are too lenient, amends the "Prevention of Theft Rule" pursuant to Section 2 of the Act, stipulating that amounts over $3,000 are considered a "substantial amount." This is unconstitutional; rulemaking must be carried out by members of the executive branch. In fact, the provision in the Act authorizing the Speaker to make rules is itself unconstitutional.
第5天，众议院议长觉得总统和司法部长都太宽容，根据法案第2条修改《防止盗窃规则》，规定3000美元以上就叫做数额较大。这是违宪的，规则制定必须由行政分支的人完成。事实上，法案中授权议长制定规则的条款本身就是违宪的。
Day 6: Both chambers of Congress pass the "Further Prevention of Theft Act," directly stipulating that theft of over $3,000 shall be punishable by death. The President does not sign it and returns it to Congress.
第6天，两院通过《进一步防止盗窃法》，直接规定盗窃3000美元以上判处死刑。总统没有签字，退回了国会。
Day 7: Both chambers of Congress pass the "Further Prevention of Theft Act" again, each by a two-thirds majority. Although the President did not sign it, the "Further Prevention of Theft Act" still becomes law. The previous executive order and rules are no longer valid because they conflict with the new law. Note that the "Further Prevention of Theft Act" also somewhat conflicts with the previous "Prevention of Theft Act"; the principle here is that the newer law prevails over the older law.
第7天，两院分别以三分之二多数再次通过《进一步防止盗窃法》。虽然总统没有签字，《进一步防止盗窃法》依然成为了法律。先前的行政命令和规则都因为和法律冲突而不再有效。注意到《进一步防止盗窃法》和先前的《防止盗窃法》也有一定冲突，其原则是新法优先于旧法。
总统权力的三个区间Three Zones of Presidential Power
When analyzing the constitutionality of presidential actions, a highly important framework comes from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (the Steel Seizure Case). This case established three zones for analyzing presidential power:
在分析总统行为的合宪性时，一个非常重要的框架来自Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)（钢铁征用案）。该案提出了分析总统权力的三个区间：
The President cannot, citing a military emergency, directly order the federal government to seize steel mills facing an imminent strike. Although the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, seizing private property is a legislative act rather than a military one, and Congress had explicitly refused to grant the President such power in prior legislation. The President's power was at its lowest ebb. [Youngstown, supra]
总统不能以军事紧急状态为由，直接下令联邦政府接管即将罢工的钢铁厂。虽然总统是军队的统帅，但接管私人财产是立法行为而非军事行为，且国会在之前的立法中已经明确拒绝授予总统这种权力。总统的权力处于最低谷。[Youngstown, supra]
This framework remains one of the most important tools for analyzing the constitutionality of presidential power. When answering questions, if you see the President exercising a power that is exclusively granted to Congress by the Constitution, such as taxing, declaring war, or coining money, the President must have explicit authorization from Congress to exercise it; otherwise, the President's power is at its lowest ebb, and the action is almost certainly unconstitutional.
这个框架至今仍是分析总统权力合宪性最重要的工具之一。在做题时，如果看到总统行使的权力恰好是宪法赋予国会的专属权力，比如征税、宣战、铸币，总统必须有国会的明确授权才能行使，否则总统的权力处于最低谷，行为几乎一定是违宪的。
Congress has the exclusive power to tax, which "very clearly" includes the power to impose tariffs. The Framers of the Constitution did not grant any part of the taxing power to the executive branch, and the government also acknowledges that the President has no inherent power to impose tariffs in peacetime. The President invoked the language of "regulate" and "importation" in the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, and almost all trading partners. But the word "regulate" does not include the meaning of "tax." When Congress authorizes the imposition of tariffs, it consistently uses explicit language and strict limitations; such a significant delegation of power cannot be inferred from the vague wording of an emergency power act. In the nearly half-century of IEEPA's existence, no President has ever invoked the act to impose tariffs, and this lack of historical precedent further demonstrates that the act did not grant such power. [Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026)]
国会有征税的专属权力，这“非常明确地”包括征收关税。宪法的先贤们没有将征税权的任何部分授予行政分支，政府也承认总统在和平时期没有固有的权力征收关税。总统援引IEEPA（国际紧急经济权力法）中“管理”（regulate）“进口”（importation）的措辞，对加拿大、墨西哥、中国以及几乎所有贸易伙伴征收关税。但“管理”一词不包含“征税”的含义。国会在授权征收关税的时候，一贯使用明确的措辞和严格的限制条件；不能从一部紧急权力法案的模糊措辞中推断出如此重大的授权。在IEEPA存在的近半个世纪中，从未有总统援引该法来征收关税，这一历史先例的缺失进一步说明该法并未授予此等权力。[Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026)]
解职Removal Power
Next, we will learn how the President fired the Attorney General on Day 4.
我们接下来学习第4天总统是如何开除司法部长的。
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Unless through the impeachment process, Congress cannot reserve the power to remove an officer.
宪法第2条第4款规定总统、副总统和合众国的一切官员在被弹劾定罪后即解除职务（removed from office）。除非走弹劾程序，国会不能保留解除官员的权力。
Congress cannot create an executive branch officer and provide that the appointment can be directly terminated by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses. Of course, if the House initiates impeachment, the Senate can remove him from office upon conviction by a two-thirds majority. However, Congress can legislate the term of office and reserve the right of Senate confirmation, so that someone the Senate dislikes can serve at most one term.
议会不能设立一个行政分支的官员，并规定只要两院三分之二多数同意就可以直接解除该职务的任命。当然，如果众议院启动弹劾，参议院再以三分之二的多数定罪可以解除他的职务。不过，国会可以立法约定职务的任期，且保留参议院批准的权利，这样参议院不喜欢的人最多干满一个任期。
To maintain the efficiency of the executive branch, the President and department heads can generally remove their direct subordinates without cause and without congressional approval [Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)]. Therefore, in the example from the previous section, the President can directly remove the Attorney General with a single order. According to the law, the Deputy Attorney General would then assume the duties. If the President wants to appoint a new Attorney General, he must still go through the appointment process mentioned earlier, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
为了维护行政分支的高效，总统和各部部长通常可以解除他们的直属下级官员，不用附理由，也不用国会同意[Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)]。所以，在上一节的例子中，总统可以通过一纸命令直接解除司法部长的职务。按照法律的规定，此时会由副部长代行其职责。总统如果想要任命新的司法部长，还是要通过前文任命的程序，经过参议院的建议和批准。
But there are some exceptions:
但有一些例外：
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a multi-member commission, consisting of 7 members with 14-year terms, who vote on major economic issues such as the U.S. dollar interest rate. The President must have good cause to remove them. Of course, they can also be impeached by Congress.
美联储理事会就是由一群人领导的的委员会，由7名委员组成，任期14年，他们投票决定美元利率等重大经济议题。总统必须要有好的理由才能解除他们的职务。当然，他们还可以被国会弹劾。
Congress established a "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" led by a single director with a 5-year term, requiring that the President must have good cause (usually malfeasance) to remove him. This provision violates the separation of powers principle and is invalid. [Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)]
国会设立一个“消费者金融保护局”，由一个局长带领，任期5年，要求总统必须要有好的理由（通常是渎职）时才能解除他的职务，这个条款违反权力的分立原则而无效。[Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)]
It is hard to say that Nixon was directly involved in the Watergate break-in; the real reason that led to his resignation was how the President handled the matter. When he was dissatisfied with the special prosecutor, he ordered the Attorney General to fire the special prosecutor, and the Attorney General resigned in protest. He then ordered the Deputy Attorney General to do so, and the Deputy also resigned. Finally, the Solicitor General, acting as Attorney General, fired the special prosecutor who was supposed to conduct an independent investigation, which sparked public outrage. The extent to which Congress can limit the President's removal power remains an active constitutional issue as of 2026.
很难说尼克松直接参与了水门事件，真正导致他辞职的原因是总统处理这件事的方式。当他对特别检察官不满意时，他要求司法部长（也是总检察长，Attorney General）解雇特别检察官，司法部长以辞职表示抗议。随后他又要求继任的副检察长这么做，副部长也辞职了。最终替补上来的总事务律师（Solicitor General）解雇了本应当独立调查的特别检察官，这激起了民众的怒火。国会能在何种程度上限制总统的解除权，直到2026年依然是活跃的宪法问题。
| Role | Assumption of Office | Exit from Office |
|---|---|---|
| Members of Congress | Election | Resignation, Expulsion (2/3 majority vote of the respective chamber), End of term |
| Speaker of the House | Determined by the House of Representatives | Resignation, Determined by the House of Representatives |
| President, Vice President (President of the Senate) | Election | Resignation, Impeachment, End of term |
| Ambassadors, Public Ministers / Heads of Departments | Appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate | Resignation, Removal by the President, Impeachment, End of term |
| Inferior Officers | May be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. | Resignation, Removal (by direct superior), Impeachment, End of term |
| Supreme Court Justices | Appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate | Resignation, Impeachment |
| Lower Federal Judges | Appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate | Resignation, Impeachment |
| 角色 | 入驻办公室 | 退出办公室 |
|---|---|---|
| 议员 | 选举 | 辞职、驱逐（该院2/3多数决）、任期结束 |
| 众议院议长 | 众议院自行规定 | 辞职、众议院自行规定 |
| 总统、副总统（参议院议长） | 选举 | 辞职、弹劾、任期结束 |
| 大使、部长 | 总统在参议院的建议和批准下任命 | 辞职、总统解除职务、弹劾、任期结束 |
| 下级官员 | 可以由总统任命、参议院建议和批准，法律也可以将任命该官员的权力指派给总统单独一人、各级法院或者各部部长。 | 辞职、（直属上司）解除职务、弹劾、任期结束 |
| 最高法院法官 | 总统任命、参议院建议和批准 | 辞职、弹劾 |
| 下级联邦法官 | 总统任命、参议院建议和批准 | 辞职、弹劾 |
宪法第3条Article III of the Constitution
法院和法官Courts and Judges
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
宪法第3条第1款规定，合众国的司法权属于最高法院和国会设立的各种下级法院。
Currently, there are 94 federal District Courts and 13 Courts of Appeals in the United States. Together with the Supreme Court, which is expressly established by the Constitution, they are all courts established under Article III, Section 1, and we call them "Article III courts."
目前美国有94个联邦地方法院（District Courts）和13个上诉法院（Courts of Appeals），和宪法明文规定的最高法院一起，他们都是根据宪法第3条第1款设立的法院，我们叫它“第3条法院”（Article III courts）。
Section 1 also provides that these judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, which effectively grants them life tenure.
第1款还规定这些法官如果忠于职守可以终身任职。
Sometimes Congress establishes courts not under its Article III power, but under its Article I power, such as the Tax Court, courts in the District of Columbia, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, immigration courts, and military tribunals. We call these "Article I courts" or "Article I tribunals." These courts sometimes exercise executive power. Congress cannot assign cases that should properly fall under the jurisdiction of Article III courts to Article I courts [Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)]. Article III courts can review the unconstitutional acts of Article I courts.
国会有时候不是根据宪法第3条的权力设立法院，而是根据第1条的权力设立，比如税务法院、首都地区的法院，专利委员会、移民委员会、军事法庭等，我们把这些法院叫做“第1条法院”（Article I courts / tribunals）。这些法院有时候行使的是行政权，国会不能把本来应该由第3条法院管辖的案子交由第1条法院管辖[Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)]。第3条法院可以审查第1条法院的违宪行为。
A law enacted by Congress providing a five-year term for judges of federal district courts (Article III courts) would be invalid, but Congress may provide a five-year term for judges of the Tax Court (an Article I court).
国会规定联邦地方法院（第3条法院）法官任期为5年的法律无效，但可以规定税务法院（第1条法院）的法官任期为5年。
Unless otherwise specified, the term "courts" mentioned in my lectures refers to Article III courts, not Article I courts, and certainly not state courts.
我的讲义中提到的“法院”如无特别说明，指的都是第3条法院，不是第1条法院，更不是州法院。
马伯里诉麦迪逊案Marbury v. Madison
In this section, we will study Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Students who have already systematically studied U.S. Constitutional Law may skip this part.
这一节我们要学习Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)。已经系统学习过美国宪法的同学可以不听。
The UK, Commonwealth countries, and most European countries generally follow a system of parliamentary supremacy. The UK did not establish a Supreme Court by act of Parliament until 2009, and Parliament could legislate to abolish it at any time. In China, the highest organ of state power is the National People's Congress (the parliament), and its interpretation of laws (legislative interpretation) prevails over the courts' interpretation (judicial interpretation). The Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions have executive-led political systems, and the ultimate power of interpretation of their Basic Laws belongs to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
英国和英联邦国家、欧洲国家大多是议会至上的制度，英国直到2009年才由议会设立最高法院，议会也可以随时立法关闭该法院。中国的最高权力机关是全国人民代表大会（议会），议会对法律的解释效力（立法解释）要高于法院对法律的解释（司法解释）。香港和澳门特别行政区则是由行政长官主导的政治制度，对基本法的最终解释权属于全国人大常委会。
A powerful judiciary may not have been the original intent of the Founding Fathers. At the inception of the U.S. Constitution, the Framers placed Congress in Article I, perhaps intending, like the UK, for Congress to dominate and check the executive and judicial branches. Executive power is inherently strong; to prevent the country from falling into stagnation, it must be granted efficient and flexible execution capabilities. Over the centuries, Congress has gradually delegated considerable power to the President through legislation.
强大的司法权可能并不是国父们的本意。在美国宪法订立之初，先贤们将国会写在宪法第1条，或许是打算像英国一样，让国会主导并制约行政和司法权。行政权天生强大，为了避免国家陷入停滞必须给予高效灵活的执行力，几百年来，国会通过立法陆陆续续授予了总统相当多的权力。
However, the judicial power could easily become a mere figurehead—at least for a long time after the Constitution was established, the judiciary had very little presence. Going back to 1803, the year of the Marbury case, the Constitution and the first ten amendments had already been adopted, but a very awkward issue remained: it was not determined which institution was responsible for interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. If a law passed by Congress violated the Constitution, there was no designated institution to correct it. The vast majority of cases heard by the Supreme Court were non-constitutional cases such as admiralty, property, and territorial disputes between states.
但司法权一不小心就会沦为摆设——至少在宪法订立之后很长的一段时间内，司法权相当没有存在感。时间回到Marbury案的1803年，当时宪法和前十条修正案都已经通过，但留下了一个非常尴尬的问题：没有确定由哪个机构负责解释和执行宪法。如果国会通过的法律违背了宪法，也没有哪个机构负责纠正。最高法院审理的绝大多数案件都是海事、财产、州与州之间的领土纠纷等非宪法案件。
The background of the Marbury case is that the outgoing President John Adams appointed over 50 of his loyalists as judges overnight, and the Senate confirmed these appointments. The next step was for Secretary of State John Marshall to affix the Great Seal of the United States to the commissions and deliver them. However, Marshall was too busy, and 17 commissions remained undelivered when he left office, with William Marbury being one of the appointees. The newly inaugurated President Thomas Jefferson was furious about this and ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver these commissions. Marbury then sued Madison in the Supreme Court, hoping the Court would compel Madison to deliver the commissions.
Marbury案的背景是即将卸任的亚当斯总统连夜任命了50多个自己人当法官，参议院也批准了这些任命，接下来应当由国务卿马歇尔在委任状上加盖合众国国玺然后发出。但是马歇尔太忙了，卸任的时候还有17份没有发出，马伯里正是其中一位。新上任的杰斐逊总统对此事非常恼火，命令新的国务卿麦迪逊不得发出这些委任状。马伯里于是向最高法院状告麦迪逊，希望法院能强制麦迪逊发出这些委任状。
The legal basis for Marbury to sue directly in the Supreme Court was Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enacted by Congress, which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases seeking a writ of mandamus against federal officials.
马伯里直接在最高法院起诉的法律依据国会于1789年颁布的《司法法》第13条：针对联邦官员提出强制令（writ of mandamus）的案件，最高法院具有初审管辖权。
The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was the former Secretary of State, John Marshall, who found himself in a dilemma. If he ruled in favor of Marbury, could the weak judiciary really force the strong executive branch to enforce his judgment? But if he ruled against Marbury, after all, Marbury was a judge appointed by the previous president and confirmed by the Senate, so what reason could be used to deny his request?
新的最高法院首席法官就是之前的国务卿马歇尔，他陷入了两难。如果判马伯里胜诉，弱势的司法权是否能真的让强势的行政权执行他的判决？而如果判马伯里败诉，毕竟他是上一任总统任命、参议院批准的法官，又能用什么理由来拒绝他的请求呢？
The opinion drafted by Marshall answered three questions:
马歇尔起草的判决对三个问题作出解答：
Viewed from a modern perspective, this decision is imperfect. First, Marshall, being part of the reason this case arose, surprisingly did not recuse himself. Second, since the Court ultimately ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, the substantive issue of whether the writ should be issued should have been left for the lower courts to decide. Otherwise, if the Supreme Court had already set the tone, the lower courts' proceedings would be rendered meaningless.
如果用现在的眼光来看，这个判决是不完美的，首先马歇尔作为这个案子产生的部分原因，他居然没有自行回避案件。其次既然最后判了没有管辖权，那应不应该签发令状的实体问题就应当让下级法院去判断，否则如果最高法院都已经先定调了，下级法院的审理也就形同虚设了。
But this does not affect the case's status as the most important case in American constitutional history. If the answers to the first two questions were already very persuasive, the answer to the third question was nothing short of brilliant. The reasoning on the jurisdictional issue not only fully complied with the Constitution and avoided direct conflict with executive power, but also quietly established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. It can be said that the separation of powers, especially the rise of the judicial branch, was a direct result of this case. While four of the greatest presidents in American history are carved into Mount Rushmore, Marshall is the only Justice to receive such an honor, with his statue placed directly in the ground floor Great Hall of the Supreme Court.
但这并不影响该案是美国宪法史上最重要的案件。如果说前两个问题的解答已经非常有说服力，那对第三个问题的解答可以说是惊为天人。对管辖权问题的说理不仅完全符合宪法，避免了和行政权力直接的冲突，又在不声不响中确立的最高法院违宪审查的权力。可以说权力的分立，尤其是司法权的崛起，是这个案子带来的直接成果。如果说美国历史上四名最伟大的总统被雕刻在拉什莫尔山上，大法官却只有马歇尔一个人有此殊荣，其雕像直接被摆在了最高法院地面楼的大厅中。
最高法院的管辖权Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, subject to such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.
宪法第3条第2款规定，关于大使、公使及领事以及一州为当事人的案件，最高法院有初审管辖权。对于其他一切的案件，最高法院有上诉管辖权，但需要遵守国会规定的例外和规则。
For cases between two or more states, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction.
对于州与州之间的案件，最高法院有排他的初审管辖权。
Trump never conceded the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Late in the election process, Texas sued Pennsylvania and other states to challenge their election results [Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)]. This was a case between states, which could only be filed in the Supreme Court. A massive number of (uninvited) third parties sought to intervene in the case, including Trump himself. Texas argued that since the only remedy for this case was in the Supreme Court, the Court should at least hear the case; the plaintiffs' attorneys even cited an ancient 1774 English precedent to support their argument. However, the Supreme Court's long-standing tradition is that it is not required to hear a case even under its original jurisdiction, so it quickly dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court provided a one-line reasoning: whether Pennsylvania's election was fair or not was of no concern to Texas, and the state was not a proper plaintiff (has no standing to sue).
特朗普一直没有承认2020年美国大选的结果。在选举后期，得克萨斯州起诉宾夕法尼亚等州质疑他们的选举结果[Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)]。这是州与州之间的案件，只能在最高法院起诉。海量的（不请自来的）第三人要求干预（intervene）本案件，包括特朗普本人。得克萨斯州认为，既然这个案件唯一的救济是在最高法院，最高法院至少应当开庭审理此案，原告律师们甚至引用了1774年英国的古老判例来支持他们的观点。但最高法院长久以来的传统就是哪怕初审管辖权也并不是必须开庭，所以很快驳回了起诉。最高法院进行了一行的说理：宾夕法尼亚州的选举公平与否，和得克萨斯州无关，该州不是适格的原告（has no standing to sue）。
If we look closely at the text of the Constitution, we will find that the original jurisdiction of the Court is exhaustive, namely, cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. Congress can neither restrict nor expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, Congress can alter the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and this power appears almost unlimited based on the constitutional text.
如果我们仔细看宪法原文，就会发现对法院的初审管辖权是穷举的，即关于大使、公使及领事以及一州为当事人的案件。国会既不能限缩、也不能扩张最高法院的初审管辖权。但国会可以改变最高法院的上诉管辖权，这种权力从宪法原文来看几乎是没有限制的。
If Congress enacts a law stripping the Supreme Court of all its appellate jurisdiction, the source of law is Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
如果国会制定法律剥夺最高法院的一切上诉管辖权，法源是宪法第3条第2款。
Congress originally provided that many appellate cases must be heard by the Supreme Court, but this placed tremendous pressure on the Court. Eventually, Congress abolished most situations where the Supreme Court must hear an appeal, changing it to allow the Supreme Court to decide at its discretion whether to hear a case (grant a writ of certiorari). Currently, about 9,000 to 10,000 cases are submitted to the Supreme Court each year, and only about 1% are heard. There are almost no circumstances where the Supreme Court is required to hear a case.
国会本来规定了很多上诉案件必须由最高法院听审，但这样给最高法院带来了很大的压力，最后国会废除了大部分必须由最高法院听审的情况，改为由最高法院自行决定是否听审（grant writ of certiorari）。目前，每年大约有9000-10000份案子会送到最高法院，只有1%左右的案子被听审，几乎没有什么情况是最高法院必须开庭审理的。
司法审查Judicial Review
Returning to the Marbury case, although Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases seeking writs of mandamus against United States officers, the text of the Constitution did not authorize Congress to restrict or expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
我们回到Marbury案，国会虽然于1789年颁布了《司法法》规定最高法院有对合众国官员提出强制令案件的初审管辖权。但宪法原文并没有授权国会限缩或者扩张最高法院的初审管辖权。
Is the Constitution a supreme, paramount law, unalterable by ordinary means, or is it on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it? If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. [Marbury, supra]
宪法究竟是一部至高无上的法律，不能用普通的办法被修改，还是和其他法律一样，可以被立法机关随随便便修改呢？如果答案是前者，那么和宪法相冲突的法律就不是法律；如果答案是后者，那宪法只是人民为了限制有无限权力的国会的荒谬尝试罢了。[Marbury, supra]
The Court's position was clear: a law repugnant to the Constitution is void. Therefore, the provision in the Judiciary Act expanding the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was treated as non-existent, and Marbury should have first filed his suit in a lower court.
法院的立场很明显，违反宪法的法律应当无效，所以《司法法》中扩张最高法院初审管辖权的法律被视为不存在，马伯里应当先去下级法院起诉。
The Marbury case pioneered the system of judicial review in the United States. The results of this case are why we have mentioned in several previous examples that a certain law is invalid or unconstitutional. The case held that it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Marbury案开创了美国司法审查制度的先河，我们在前面多个案例中提到某某法律无效，某某法律违宪，这都是该案带来的结果。该案认为，解释法律毫无疑问应当是司法部门的职责（It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is）。
On Day 8, when sentencing Zhang San, who was convicted of stealing $5,000 on federal land, a federal court explained that the provision in the Further Theft Prevention Act mandating the death penalty for thefts over $3,000 was too harsh and conflicted with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and thus should be void and treated as non-existent. The judge ultimately followed precedent and sentenced him to only three months in prison. The Department of Justice, which already disliked this bill forced through by Congress, instructed the prosecutor not to appeal.
第8天，联邦法院在给一名在联邦土地上盗窃5000美元被定罪的张三量刑时解释道，《进一步防止盗窃法》规定盗窃3000美元以上就判处死刑过于严苛，和宪法第8修正案禁止过重的刑罚相冲突，应该无效，视为不存在。法官最终只循例判处了3个月监禁。司法部本来就不喜欢这个被国会强行通过的法案，指示检察官不得上诉（抗诉）。
On Day 9, however, another federal court sentenced Li Si to death for stealing exactly $3,000, and Li Si immediately appealed. As the United States is a common law country, although precedents from coordinate courts are often referenced, they are not binding; otherwise, if the Day 8 judgment were wrong, it would not only result in too light a sentence for Zhang San but also cause the serious consequence of subsequent cases blindly following the precedent without any channel for correction. You may also have noticed that if Li Si had committed the theft before the new law was passed, the judgment would also violate the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws.
第9天，另外一个联邦法院却给仅盗窃3000美元的李四判处死刑，李四立刻上诉。美国作为普通法国家，同级法院的判例虽然经常被互相参考，但并非一定要尊重，否则如果第8天的判决是错误的，不仅造成张三量刑过轻，还会造成后案一直循例且没有渠道纠正的严重后果。你或许还注意到，李四如果在新法通过之前盗窃，该判决还违反了宪法中的禁止事后法（ex post facto law）条款。
After a lengthy appeal process, the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that the Further Theft Prevention Act was unconstitutional. If Congress wanted this bill to take effect, it could only initiate the constitutional amendment process to repeal the Eighth Amendment, which is virtually impossible.
经过漫长的上诉，最高法院最终确认了《进一步防止盗窃法》是违宪的。如果国会希望这个法案生效，只能启动修宪程序废除宪法第8修正案，这几乎是不可能的。
As the system of judicial review has developed to this day, there are some details to note. First, not all laws are unconstitutional on their face; they might only be prone to unconstitutionality when enforced. Courts will determine, depending on the circumstances, whether a law is completely invalid (invalid on its face) or invalid only when applied to certain persons or situations (as-applied). Second, some laws consist of many provisions. If only some non-essential parts are unconstitutional, courts prefer to sever the unconstitutional parts rather than declare the entire law unconstitutional.
违宪审查制度发展到今天，有一些细节需要注意。首先并不是所有法律都从字面意思上违宪，有可能只是执行的时候容易违宪，法院会视情况判定法律是完全无效（invalid on its face），还是在适用于某些人时（as-applied）无效。其次，一些法律由很多条款组成，如果只是一些无关紧要的部分违宪，法院更喜欢把违宪的部分剥离出来，而不是宣布整条法律违宪。
The provision by Congress requiring the President to have good cause to remove the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was invalid, but this part could be severed. The CFPB and its Director continue to exist, and the administrative penalties issued by the agency remain valid; it is just that the Director can now be removed by the President at will.
国会让总统必须有好的理由才能解除“消费者财产保护局”局长职务的规定无效，但这部分可以剥离出来，“消费者财产保护局”和局长继续存在，该机构作出的行政处罚也继续有效，只是局长可以随时被总统解职而已。
联邦司法权的范围Scope of Federal Judicial Power
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the judicial power shall extend to the following cases and controversies in law and equity between parties. We do not need to memorize them line by line for now.
宪法第3条第2款规定，司法权及于以下当事人之间的普通法（law）和衡平法（equity）案件（cases）和争议（controversies）。我们暂时不用逐条背诵。
The application of Marbury is ubiquitous in the Constitutional Law section. Let's first practice with a few jurisdiction-related examples that are very similar to this case.
Marbury案的运用在宪法篇无处不在，我们先用几个和该案非常相似的和管辖权有关的例子来练练手。
Zhang San, a citizen of State A, sues Li Si, a citizen of State A, in federal court based on the tort law of State B. Because this does not fit any of the above categories, the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case, and it would be to no avail even if Li Si consented to being sued in federal court. If the trial court renders a judgment on the case, the appellate court must vacate the judgment. This is "subject matter jurisdiction," which we will study in detail in the Civil Procedure section.
甲州公民张三在联邦法院起诉甲州公民李四，案由是乙州的侵权法。因为这不符合上面任何一条，所以联邦法院对此案没有管辖权，哪怕李四同意在联邦法院被起诉也无济于事。如果法院一审对该案作出了判决，上诉法院也必须撤销该判决。这就是“对事管辖权”（subject matter jurisdiction），我们会在民诉篇中详细学习。
The Constitution does not prohibit Congress from restricting the jurisdiction of Article III courts other than the Supreme Court. In fact, since these lower courts are established by Congress, Congress naturally has the power to define their jurisdiction. Therefore, although the Constitution provides that judicial power extends to controversies between citizens of different states, it does not mean that every lawsuit between citizens of different states must be heard. In fact, Congress has continuously raised the threshold for lawsuits between citizens of different states through legislation. Currently, a lawsuit based on state law must exceed $75,000 in controversy to be filed in federal court, which we will study in detail in the Civil Procedure section.
宪法没有禁止国会限缩最高法院以外的其他第3条法院的管辖权，实际上这些下级法院既然是国会设立的，国会当然权规定他们的管辖权。所以虽然宪法规定司法权及于不同州公民之间的诉讼，却并非只要是不同州公民之间的诉讼就必须受理。事实上国会不断地通过立法提高不同州之间公民的诉讼门槛，目前基于州法的诉讼必须要超过75000美金的争讼才能在联邦法院提出，我们会在民诉篇中详细学习。
One of the two senators from State A sees that citizens of State B can sue citizens of State A for torts in federal court, while State A's own citizens cannot, and feels deeply unfair. He persuades both chambers to pass a law allowing federal courts to hear cases based on state law between citizens of the same state. This law is invalid because it is unconstitutional; the scope of federal judicial power enumerated in the Constitution is exhaustive, and Congress is not authorized to expand it.
甲州的两个参议员之一看到乙州公民可以在联邦法院起诉甲州的公民侵权，而甲州自己的公民却不可以，于是感到深深的不公平，他说服两院通过了一部法律允许联邦法院审理同一州公民之间基于州法的案件。该法律因违宪而无效，国会关于联邦司法权的范围是穷举的，没有授权国会增加联邦司法权的范围。
We will occasionally touch upon what kinds of cases state courts hear. The general principle is that as long as it is not under exclusive federal jurisdiction, state courts can hear it, including cases involving federal law and cases between citizens of different states. Many cases fall under the concurrent jurisdiction of both federal and state courts.
我们偶尔还会涉及到州法院审理什么样的案件，大原则只要不是联邦的专属管辖，州法院都可以审，包括涉及联邦法的案件和涉及不同州公民之间的案件，很多都是联邦和州法院都可以管的。
However, there are also cases that only federal courts can hear. Typical examples include patent law, copyright law, immigration law, and federal criminal law. Many of these fall within the exclusive federal jurisdiction we learned about in Article I of the Constitution, and some cases must first go to Article I courts.
但也有案件只有联邦法院才可以管，典型有专利法、版权法（copyright）、移民法、联邦刑法等，很多是我们在宪法第1条学过的联邦专属管辖范围，有的案子必须要先去第1条法院。
For a person afraid to return to their home country applying for a U.S. green card, the first step is an interview. If it fails, they go to the immigration court, and then the Board of Immigration Appeals: these are all administrative agencies (Article I courts). If they still fail, they should sue directly in the federal court of appeals (circuit court), which is an Article III court, and thereafter seek relief from the Supreme Court (which rarely grants certiorari). In any case, states are not responsible for administering immigration matters.
害怕回到自己国家的人申请美国绿卡，第一步是面谈，失败后会到移民法庭，然后是移民上诉委员会：这都是行政机构（第1条法院）。依然失败后，应该直接起诉到联邦上诉法院（巡回法院），这是第3条法院，此后向最高法院救济（极少开庭）。无论如何，州不负责管理移民的事务。
案件和争议Cases and Controversies
咨询意见Advisory Opinions
Courts should be passive and restrained. Courts never proactively jump out to resolve disputes. Does that mean as long as someone files a lawsuit, the court must hear it? Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution tells us that courts only resolve "cases" and "controversies." The courts interpret these two words to mean they will only hear a case when there is a "strict necessity." Therefore, if a dispute has not occurred or has already ended, and the parties merely want the court to give an advisory opinion on a certain issue, the court should not hear it. By contrast, if we recall the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in international law, the ICJ shall answer requests for advisory opinions from the UN General Assembly or the Security Council, and such advisory opinions have a significant impact on future judgments. Furthermore, some state courts and Article I courts are allowed to issue advisory opinions.
法院应当是被动的、克制的。法院从来不会主动跳出来解决争议。那是不是说只要有人告到了法院，法院就必须受理呢？宪法第3条第2款告诉我们法院只解决案件（cases）和争议（controversies），法院对这两个单词的解释是“不得不受理”（strict necessity）的时候才会受理。所以如果争议没有发生或已经结束，当事人只是希望法院对某个问题给出咨询意见（advisory opinions），法院不应该受理。作为对比，如果我们还记得三国法中的国际法院的话，国际法院则是应当回答联合国大会或者安理会提出咨询意见，咨询意见对未来的判决会有重大影响。不仅如此，有的州法院和第1条法院就可以提出咨询意见。
Sometimes a plaintiff will ask the court to declare a certain law unconstitutional. In such cases, we must consider whether the law has caused the plaintiff to be "immediately harmed, or immediately threatened with harm."
有时候原告会让法院宣布某条法律违宪，这个时候我们就要考虑这条法律有没有对原告造成“紧迫和现实的损害”（immediately harmed, or immediately threatened with harm）。
A candidate of Party A sues the chairman of Party A, alleging that Party B committed election fraud, and the chairman of Party A agrees with the plaintiff. This case lacks an actual controversy, and the court should not hear it.
甲党派的候选人状告甲党派的主席认为乙党派在选举中舞弊，甲党派的主席同意原告的意见。这个案子没有实际争议，法院不应该审理。
A doctor and patients sued to ask the court to declare a state law unconstitutional, which prohibited doctors from giving patients advice on birth control. However, this law was passed in the last century and had not been enforced for a long time, nor had any doctor been prosecuted under this law for a long time. The court held that the plaintiffs suffered no immediate and actual harm. [Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)]
医生和病人状告要求法院宣布州的一部法律违宪，这部法律禁止医生给病人提供计划生育的建议。但这部法律是上个世纪通过的且很久没有被执行，也很久没有医生因为这部法律被起诉。法院认为原告没有紧迫现实的损害。[Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)]
A state legislature passes a law to immediately demolish all hospital emergency rooms. Hospitals can ask a federal court to declare the law unconstitutional. Demolishing the hospitals constitutes an immediate and actual harm to the hospitals.
州议会立法立刻拆除所有医院的急诊室，医院可以要求联邦法院宣布该法律违宪。拆除医院是对医院紧迫和现实的损害。
A city government passes an ordinance establishing a fire warden position, who can conduct surprise inspections of certain buildings and issue citations. Before a citation is actually issued, citizens cannot ask a federal court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional.
市政府立法设立一个防火管理员职位，该职位可以突击检查一些建筑物并开具罚单。在罚单真正被开具之前，市民不可以要求联邦法院宣布该条法律违宪。
时机成熟Ripeness
As we can see from the previous examples of demolishing emergency rooms and the fire warden, even if a law is passed, it is not necessarily a good time to sue for its unconstitutionality (let alone when the law has not yet been passed). When considering whether a challenge to an unenforced law is ripe, the court must consider two factors: (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.
我们从刚才拆除急诊室和防火管理员的例子可以看出来，即使一部法律通过了，也不见得就是起诉这部法律违宪的好时机（更别说法律还没通过的时候）。法院在考虑一部尚未实施的法律是否成熟（ripeness）时要考虑下面两个因素：（1）让法院来处理该争议是否合适，（2）如果法院不立刻解决该争议，会对当事人带来的损害。
Let's grasp this standard through cases.
我们通过案例来把握这个度。
Oregon passed a law requiring all children to attend public schools after three years. Although the law would not be enforced for three years, private schools had already begun to lose enrollment, so the issue was ripe. [Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)]
俄勒冈州通过法律要求3年后所有小孩都要上公立学校，虽然法律3年之后才开始执行，但私立学校的生源已经开始减少，所以时机是成熟的。[Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)]
A party to a contract sought a federal court declaration that a certain clause was invalid, but in reality, the party had been performing the obligations under the clause to avoid high damages in case of losing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that Article III merely prevents the adjudication of "hypothetical" and "abstract" issues, and performing the contract itself does not eliminate the existence of a controversy. [MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007)]
合同的一方希望联邦法院宣布某条款无效，但实际上该方一直在履行该条款的义务，避免万一败诉带来的高额赔偿金。最高法院认为宪法第3条仅仅是避免审理“假设性”和“抽象性”的问题，履行合同本身并不能排除争议的存在。[MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007)]
Washington State announced that leasing land to aliens could result in forfeiture and fines. Article III does not require a landowner to risk forfeiture of their land by leasing it to an alien before bringing a lawsuit. [Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923)]
华盛顿州宣布把土地租给外国人可能会被没收并处以罚款，宪法第3条并不要求地主冒着土地被没收的风险租给外国人之后再行起诉。[Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923)]
诉由消失Mootness
If ripeness means a lawsuit is brought too early, mootness means a lawsuit is brought too late, such as when the controversy no longer exists before the lawsuit is filed. However, most of the time it is not that the lawsuit is filed too late, but rather that the litigation process is too slow, causing the controversy to be resolved during the proceedings. In this case, the case will also be denied substantive review due to mootness.
如果说时机成熟（ripeness）是说的诉讼太早，那诉由消失（mootness）说的就是诉讼太晚，比如起诉之前争议已经不存在。但大部分时候也不是诉讼太晚，是因为诉讼程序太慢，导致诉讼过程中争议被解决，此时案件也同样会因为诉由消失被拒绝实质性审理。
A city government plans to build a highway. The plaintiff sues the city government for nuisance, with the sole prayer for relief being an injunction against the government building the road. By the time of the trial, the highway has already been built. The court should dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff may separately file a tort claim for damages, or even a lawsuit seeking demolition.
市政府要修一条高速公路，原告以滋扰为由起诉市政府，唯一的诉求就是禁止政府修路。在开庭时，高速公路已经建成。法院应当驳回起诉。原告可以另行提起侵权赔偿之诉，甚至可以提起拆除之诉。
However, the litigation process is always lengthy. If:
但诉讼程序总是漫长的，如果：
DeFunis sued in Washington state court, arguing that the law school's admissions process discriminated against him through reverse discrimination. The court ordered the school to admit him immediately, and he enrolled that fall. Later, the state supreme court reversed the lower court's judgment; by then, DeFunis was a second-year student, and he immediately appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the state supreme court's judgment. By the time the Supreme Court heard the case, DeFunis was in his final semester of law school, and the school had promised not to cancel his enrollment. The Supreme Court held that its judgment would no longer affect DeFunis's rights. Also, people usually attend law school only once, so DeFunis was not likely to suffer the same injury again. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the admissions-discrimination issue on mootness grounds [DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)]. Whether universities could engage in reverse discrimination in admissions was not fully resolved until 2023; see the later Equal Protection section.
德夫尼斯起诉到华盛顿州法院，认为法学院录取的时候对他进行反向歧视，法院要求学校立刻录取他，学生当年秋季顺利入学。后来州最高法院推翻了下级法院的判决，这时候德夫尼斯已经是二年级学生，学生立刻上诉，联邦最高法院暂停了州最高法院判决的执行。在最高法院开庭的时候，德夫尼斯已经是法学院最后一学期的学生，学校已承诺不会取消他的学籍。最高法院认为自己的判决已经不会对德夫尼斯的权利有任何影响。且人们通常只会读一次法学院，德夫尼斯的权利未来不会遭受同样的侵犯。最高法院最终因诉由消失拒绝审理招生歧视的问题[DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)]。大学是否可以在招生时进行反向歧视直到2023年才被完全解决，参考后文的“平等保护”。
Then the court may disregard the mootness and still hear the case on the merits. [Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975)]
那么法院可以无视诉由消失，依然实质性审理案件。[Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975)]
If these two conditions are not met, a class action involving a large number of applicants may be considered. In this way, even if the claims of some plaintiffs become moot, including the named plaintiff, it will not affect the continued adjudication of the entire case.
不符合这两个条件的话，可以考虑大量申请人一并进行集体诉讼（class action），这样即使其中一些原告诉由消失，即使是显名的原告（named plaintiff），也不影响整个案件的继续审理。
The plaintiff was an inmate who was prohibited from marrying by the prison. He sued in court, and a class action was certified. Before the court actually heard the case, the inmate was released upon completing his sentence. The claim did not become moot because he still represented other inmates in the same situation.
原告是犯人，监狱禁止他结婚，于是他告到法院，法院认证了一个集体诉讼（a class action is certified），在法院实际审理之前，该犯人刑满释放了，诉由并没有消失，因为他还代表其他同样情况的犯人。
主体适格Standing
To determine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue, we first require the plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact. Therefore, merely alleging that a credit reporting agency's inaccurate information violated federal regulations, without proving that the plaintiff suffered actual harm due to the agency's error, does not make the plaintiff a proper party with standing [Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016)]. Actual harm need not be economic; any restriction on conduct, or an environmental change that would make the plaintiff's place of residence more comfortable, can also satisfy the "actual harm" requirement.
要看原告是否适格（have standing to sue），我们首先要求原告有事实上的损害（injury in fact）。所以仅仅起诉信用报告公司的信息不准确违反了联邦条例，但若无法举证原告因为信用报告公司的错误造成了实际损害，则不是适格的原告 [Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016)]。实际损害不必是经济上的，任何行为的限制，或者环境的改变会让原告居住地更舒适，也可以满足“实际损害”的要求。
There must be causation between the challenged conduct and the plaintiff's injury. Courts typically require a relatively direct causal connection. The logic is that merely because someone else ate more cake does not prove that your own cake has become smaller. Conversely, if a judgment reduces someone else's cake, your cake will not necessarily become larger, so there is no need to issue a judgment that harms others without benefiting yourself.
被诉行为和原告的损害之间必须要有因果关系（causation），法院通常要求有比较直接的因果关系，其逻辑是，仅仅因为别人吃了更多的蛋糕并不能证明自己的蛋糕变小了。反过来，如果判决减少别人的蛋糕，你的蛋糕也不必然变得更大，那也就没有必要给出损人不利己的判决。
Texas was not a proper plaintiff with standing to challenge the election results in Pennsylvania. [Texas v. Pennsylvania, supra]
对于宾夕法尼亚州大选的结果，得克萨斯州不是适格的原告。[Texas v. Pennsylvania, supra]
Parents of Black children attending public schools did not have standing to challenge whether the IRS unlawfully granted tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. [Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)]
关于国税局是否违法给歧视黑人的私立学校税收优惠的政策，在公立学校就读的黑人儿童父母并不是适格的原告。[Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)]
If the lower court's judgment does not restrict the appellant's rights, the appellant lacks standing to appeal. [Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013)]
如果原审判决没有限制上诉人的权利，那上诉人就是不适格的。[Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013)]
Congress has no power to eliminate the requirement that courts may only hear "cases and controversies," because "cases and controversies" is the text of the Constitution. However, if Congress enacts legislation intended to protect a certain group and allows this group to bring unlawful conduct to court, courts will generally find such plaintiffs to have standing. Of course, the plaintiff is still required to prove that they have suffered a concrete injury.
国会无权剥夺法院必须审理“案件和争议”的要求，因为“案件和争议”是宪法的原文，但如果国会立法旨在保护某个群体，并且允许这个群体将违法的行为诉诸法院，法院通常会认为这样的原告是适格的。当然，原告依然要求证明自己受到的实质性的损害。
Generally, a plaintiff may only bring a lawsuit when their own rights have been violated, but there are exceptions for third-party standing. When analyzing third-party standing, we must consider whether it is difficult for the directly injured party to assert their own rights, and whether there is a sufficiently close relationship between the plaintiff and the third party.
通常原告只能在自己的权利被侵犯时提起诉讼，但存在第三方适格（third-party standing）的例外，分析第三方适格的时候，我们要考虑本来适格的原告是否方便发声，以及原告和第三方之间是否有足够紧密的关系（close relationship）。
A liquor vendor may sue on behalf of male patrons to challenge a law prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to males under 21 [Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)]; an association may challenge a law requiring the disclosure of its members' information on behalf of its members [NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)]; a criminal defendant may challenge the exclusion of jurors on behalf of those excluded jurors [Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991)]; sellers of contraceptives have standing to sue on behalf of their potential customers [Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)]; a white land seller has standing to sue on behalf of potential Black buyers [Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (1953)]; and courts are relatively willing to find third-party standing when doctors advocate for female clients seeking abortions [Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016)]. However, such third-party standing cannot be abused. For example, attorneys cannot advocate for criminal defendants with whom they have no relationship, even if the right they seek to assert is the right of those (future) criminal defendants to hire counsel [Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004)]; nor can a father bring a lawsuit on behalf of a daughter over whom he does not have custody, when neither the daughter nor the mother wishes to bring the suit [Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004)].
酒商可以代男性酒友起诉禁止销售酒精制品给21岁以内男性的法律[Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)]，协会可以代替会员挑战要求协会披露他们信息的法律[NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)]，刑事被告可以代陪审员挑战将他们排除在外的决定[Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991)]，避孕药的卖家有权为他们的潜在客户提出诉讼[Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)]，白人土地卖家有权为他们潜在的黑人买家提出诉讼[Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (1953)]，当医生为打算堕胎的女性客户发声时，法院比较愿意认定第三方适格 [Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016)]。但这种第三方适格也不可以被滥用，比如律师不能为和他们没有任何关系的刑事被告发声，即使他们想要争取的权利正是这些（未来的）刑事被告聘请律师的权利[Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004)]，父亲也不能为并不归他抚养的女儿提起女儿和母亲都不希望提起的诉讼[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004)]。
An assignee of a contractual right has standing, even if they remit all the proceeds to the assignor. The Supreme Court held that allowing an assignee to bring suit is a well-established tradition dating back to before the Court's founding, and the fact that the assignee can obtain a recovery through the lawsuit is sufficient to satisfy Article III of the Constitution; how they dispose of the recovery afterward is a separate issue. [Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008)]
合同权利的被转让人是适格的主体，即使他把所有的钱全部交给了转让人。最高法院认为被转让人允许提起诉讼是该院成立之前和以来一直沿用的优良传统，被转让人通过诉讼可以获得利益就足够满足宪法第3条了，至于他获得利益之后如何处分则是另外的问题。[Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008)]
If an association or organization needs to bring a lawsuit on behalf of affected members, it must prove that the impact on the members is germane to the association's purpose, and that the nature of the lawsuit does not require the individual participation of the members. Of course, if the association's own interests are affected, the association itself has standing.
如果协会或者组织需要代为受影响的会员提起诉讼，需要证明会员受到的影响是和协会目的相关的，且诉讼的性质不要求会员亲自参加诉讼。当然，如果协会自己的利益受到影响，协会本身就是适格的主体。
If a plaintiff has not suffered an actual injury, they generally cannot bring a proper lawsuit merely as a citizen, a Constitution enthusiast, or a taxpayer, even if the government spends their tax dollars on things they believe it shouldn't. However, suing the government for unconstitutionally establishing religion is the sole exception; citizens can sue as taxpayers (even if they have suffered no injury other than their tax dollars being used to support religion). We will study this in detail later in the section on the separation of church and state.
原告如果没有受到实际的损害，通常不能作为公民、宪法爱好者、纳税人提起适格的诉讼，即使政府把他们的税金花到了（他们认为）不该花的地方，但起诉政府违宪扶持宗教是唯一的例外，公民可以作为纳税人起诉（即使他们没有受到除了税金被用来扶持宗教之外的任何损害），我们会在后文的政教分离详细学习。
If a legislator fails to prevent the passage of a law in the legislature, they generally do not automatically have standing to challenge the law, unless they have personally suffered an actual injury.
议员如果在议会阻止某个法律通过失败，他通常不会当然成为挑战这部法律的适格主体，除非他自己受到了实际的损害。
Even if a law impairs the constitutional power of Congress as a whole, individual legislators still lack standing [Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)]. However, an actual victim of the law may argue that it is invalid because it did not comply with constitutionally mandated procedures [Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)].
即使一部法律损害的是整个国会的宪法权力，单独的议员依然不适格 [Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997)]。但这部法律的实际受害者可以主张其因为不符合宪法规定的程序而无效[Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)]。
To appease the concerns of some legislators that a bill might be unconstitutional, Congress included a provision in the bill stating that "legislators who object to the bill may sue to challenge its constitutionality after passage," and the bill successfully passed. The minority of opposing legislators still lack standing because they have not suffered a personal injury, and the constitutional requirement of "cases and controversies" cannot be altered by legislation. Unless, for example, the bill reduces legislators' salaries, in which case the legislator would have a personal injury and thus have standing. Or, for example, if the bill requires government offices to close on Saturdays, a legislator could attempt to conduct business on a Saturday and sue as a citizen affected by the bill who was denied service.
为了安抚部分议员关于法案可能违宪的顾虑，国会将“对法案不服的议员可以在通过后起诉法案违宪”写在了法案中，法案顺利获得通过。少数反对的议员依然不适格，因为他们没有切身受到损害，且宪法对“案件和争议”的要求并不能通过立法改变。除非，比如说，法案是在削减议员的工资，那议员就有了切身的损害，他就是适格的。又比如说，法案是要求政府周六不开门，那议员可以尝试周六去办理业务，并作为一名受到法案影响的、被拒绝办理业务的公民起诉。
尊重州法Respect for State Law
For ease of explanation, we first introduce some material that may overlap with later sections.
为了方便讲解，我们先引入一些和后文可能重复的内容。
Against this background, if a state court decides a case using both federal and state law, and the state law grounds are "adequate and independent," there is no need for the federal court to rule on the federal law portion, because it would not affect the outcome of the case.
在这些知识背景下，如果州同时用联邦法和州法审理案件，并且州的理由已经“足够并且独立”（adequate and independent），联邦就没有必要对联邦法的部分进行裁决，因为已经不会影响案件结果。
The plaintiff argued that a contract not only violated the state's public policy but also violated an anti-discrimination law passed by Congress, and either reason would render the contract invalid. The state supreme court held that the contract was invalid under both state and federal law. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court were to find that the contract did not violate the federal anti-discrimination law, it could not change the fact that the contract was invalid (for violating state public policy). Therefore, the federal court cannot hear this case. It is worth noting that whether the contract violates state public policy is entirely up to the state supreme court, and the federal court has no authority to interfere.
原告认为，合同不仅违反州内公序良俗，还违反了国会通过的一条反歧视法，任何一个原因都会导致合同无效。州最高法院认为无论是依据州法还是联邦法，合同都无效。联邦最高法院即使认为合同不违反联邦反歧视法，也改变不了合同（违反州内公序良俗）而无效的事实。所以联邦不能审理这个案子。值得一提的是，是否违反州内的公序良俗是州最高法院说了算的，联邦无权干涉。
Same as the previous example. The state supreme court held that the contract was valid under both state and federal law. In this scenario, if the federal court finds that the contract is invalid for violating the federal anti-discrimination law, it would change the outcome of the case, so the U.S. Supreme Court can hear the case. Obviously, whether federal law is violated is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.
同上例。州最高法院认为无论依据州法还是联邦法，合同都有效。此时，联邦如果认为违反了联邦反歧视法而无效，则会改变案件结果，联邦最高法院可以审理这个案子。显然，是否违反联邦法由最高法院一锤定音。
A state constitution's provision prohibiting unreasonable searches is identical to that of the federal Constitution. The state supreme court interpreted federal and state law identically and held that the state government's search violated both the state and federal constitutions. The state government can still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because the state supreme court's reasoning is not "independent"; if its interpretation of the federal Constitution is wrong, its interpretation of the identically worded provision in the state constitution is also wrong.
州宪法禁止公民被不合理搜查的条款和联邦宪法一模一样，州最高法院对联邦法和州法作出了相同的解释并认为州政府的搜查同时违反了州宪法和联邦宪法。州政府依然可以上诉到联邦最高法院，因为州最高法院的理由并不“独立”，如果对联邦宪法的解释是错误的，对州宪法中相同语言条款的解释也就一并错了。
The state supreme court held that the state constitution provides greater protection for freedom of speech than the federal Constitution, so the government's action not only violated the federal Constitution but also violated the freedom of speech protected by the state constitution. Even if the state supreme court's interpretation that the government's action violated the federal Constitution is wrong, it cannot change the fact that it violated the state constitution. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot hear the case.
州最高法院认为州宪法比联邦要更加保护言论自由，所以政府的行为不仅违反了联邦宪法，更违反了州宪法保护的言论自由。即使州最高法院关于政府的行为违反了联邦宪法的解释是错误的，也无法改变他违反了州宪法的事实，联邦最高法院不能审理这个案子。
If the state court does not specify which law it is applying, the federal court will presume that there are no "adequate and independent" state law grounds, especially when the state court heavily cites federal precedents. [Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)]
如果州不说自己是用什么法律，联邦法院会默认没有“足够并且独立”州法支持，尤其是州法院大量引用联邦判例的时候。[Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)]
If a state law is unclear, and a state court's interpretation might avoid a federal constitutional issue, the federal court should not intervene before the state court has made a decision. Instead, it should abstain from hearing the case until the state court first reaches a judgment. [Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496 (1941)]
如果州法规定不明确，且州法院的解释可能避免联邦宪法问题，联邦法院不应该在州法院还没有作出决定之前提前干涉，而是应该暂停审理（abstain），直到州法院先作出判决结果。[Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman, 312 U.S. 496 (1941)]
Federal courts also should not interfere with pending state court proceedings, unless there is bad faith, harassment, a statute that is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional, or the applicant would suffer an irreparable injury that is both great and immediate.
联邦法院也不应该干涉州法院已经开始审理的某个案件，除非一方是恶意的（bad faith），骚扰性质的（harassment），显然不合宪（utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional），或者申请人会遭受紧迫且无法弥补的巨大伤害（suffer an irreparable injury that is both great and immediate）。
A California prosecutor charged a defendant with violating state law, but the defendant countersued in federal court seeking to enjoin the prosecutor from prosecuting him, arguing that the state law was invalid for violating federal law. The Supreme Court held that the federal court should not intervene before the state court renders a judgment, and that merely being criminally prosecuted does not constitute a great and immediate irreparable injury. [Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)]
加州检察官起诉被告人违反州法，被告人却到联邦法院反诉要求禁止检察官起诉他，理由是州法因违反联邦法而无效。最高法院认为，联邦法院不应该在州法院作出判决之前就进行干涉，仅仅被刑事起诉不是紧迫且无法弥补的巨大伤害。[Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)]
政治问题Political Questions
Courts do not decide political questions, which are issues that should be resolved internally by or between the legislative and executive branches.
法院不处理政治问题（political questions），即应当由立法或者行政机关内部或者相互解决的问题。
A person successfully impeached by Congress cannot sue in court. Impeachment is the responsibility of the legislative branch, and the judicial branch only participates by having the Chief Justice preside over the impeachment trial of a sitting president. The court must give complete deference to impeachment decisions.
被国会成功弹劾的人不能起诉到法院。弹劾是立法分支的职责，司法分支仅仅会在弹劾现任总统的时候派首席大法官主持一下。法院必须给予弹劾决定完全的尊重。
A country against which war has been declared cannot sue in court to challenge Congress's decision, as declaring war is the responsibility of Congress. A government, ambassador, or person affected by the severance of diplomatic relations also cannot sue in court to challenge the President's decision, as foreign affairs are the responsibility of the President.
被宣战的国家不能起诉到法院质疑国会的决定，宣战是国会的职责。被断交的政府、大使、受断交影响的人也不能起诉到法院质疑总统的决定，外交是总统的职责。
The President needs Senate approval to make a treaty, but does canceling a treaty require Senate approval? When the Court came closest to answering this question, it sidestepped it. Note that the Supreme Court did not deny its authority to interpret this issue; rather, the political environment at the time was not suitable for intervention. The Court reasoned that disputes between the President and Congress are commonplace, and the judicial branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches have truly reached an impasse. Otherwise, the Court would be encouraging small groups or even individual members of Congress to seek judicial resolution before the normal political process has had a chance to resolve the conflict. [Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)]
总统订立盟约需要参议院批准，取消盟约是否需要参议院批准呢？在最接近给出这个问题答案的时候，法院避开了。请注意，最高法院并没有否认它有权解释这个问题，只是当时的政治环境还不适合介入。法院认为，总统和国会之间的分歧是司空见惯的，在政治部门真正陷入僵局之前，司法部门不应决定影响总统和国会之间的权力分配。否则，法院是在鼓励国会的小团体甚至个别议员在正常的政治程序有机会解决冲突之前就寻求司法解决问题。[Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)]
This does not mean that every issue involving the legislative and executive branches is a political question.
并不是说凡是涉及立法和行政分支的问题都是政治问题。
Just as Madison's refusal to allow Marbury to take office was not a political question, Congress's refusal to seat an elected representative without following proper procedures is not a political question. [Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)]
正如麦迪逊不让马伯里上任不是政治问题一样，国会如果不按程序拒绝让被选上的议员就职就不是政治问题。[Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)]
The President's documents and communications are generally confidential, but if these materials are relevant to an ongoing criminal prosecution, a demand for their production should at least be a justiciable, non-political question. [United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)]
总统的文件和通讯通常是保密的，但是如果这些资料和正在进行的刑事诉讼相关，要求提供这些材料至少应该是可诉的非政治问题。[United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)]
Whether an American born in Jerusalem can have "Israel" listed as their birthplace on their passport is not a political question. When Congress passed a law requiring passports to be marked in this way, whether Congress interfered with the President's exclusive foreign affairs power was a classic constitutional issue that should be resolved by the courts. [Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015)]
出生在耶路撒冷的美国人到底能不能在护照上注明出生在以色列就不是政治问题。当国会立法规定护照上必须要如此注明的时候，国会是否干涉了总统专属的外交权是经典的宪法问题，应当由法院来解决。[Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015)]
陪审团Jury
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides at the end that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. There are many details regarding juries, which we will introduce in the Criminal Procedure section and summarize in the Civil Procedure section.
宪法第3条第2款最后规定了除弹劾案以外的刑事案件应当由陪审团审理。关于陪审团有很多细节，我们会在刑诉篇进行介绍，并在民诉篇作总结。
宪法第4-7条Articles IV-VII of the Constitution
州与州，州与公民State and State, State and Citizens
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that each state shall give full faith and credit to the judgments and judicial proceedings of other states. Simply put, this means recognizing out-of-state judgments, which we will introduce in detail in the Civil Procedure section.
宪法第4条第1款规定，各州对于其他州的判决和司法程序应当给与充分的尊重和执行（full faith and credit）。简单地说就是要承认外州的判决，我们会在民诉篇详细介绍。
Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. We will systematically study privileges and immunities later in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment.
宪法第4条第2款规定，一个州的公民应当享受其他州的公民的特权和豁免（Privileges and Immunities）。我们会在后文第14修正案系统学习特权和豁免。
联邦财产Federal Property
Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, but nothing shall prejudice any claims of any state. We will learn about "police power" later, which means that powers not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved to the states by default, such as education, health, safety, and zoning. However, within the territories and properties managed by the United States, police power also belongs to Congress. Representative examples include the capital district (though its legal basis is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution), national parks, and various federal government office buildings.
宪法第4条第3款规定国会有权处理和制定合众国土地或其他财产的法规和条例，但不得损害任何一州的利益。我们后面会学到“警察权”（police power），意思是宪法没有授权给国会的权力默认是保留给各州的，比如教育、医疗、治安、土地规划（zoning）等。但是在合众国管理的土地和产业内，警察权也归国会所有，比较有代表性的是首都地区（法源却是宪法第1条第8款），国家公园和各种联邦政府的办公大楼内。
Congress has the power to legislate on safety, health, and education in the District of Columbia, and even on how lawyers practice in the district. The District of Columbia is one of the few jurisdictions where an online LLM graduate can take the bar exam, and any out-of-state lawyer who has practiced for three years can directly apply to practice in the district. In contrast, New York State does not allow California lawyers to apply for admission without examination, and other states that do allow such applications still do not waive the educational requirements.
国会有权立法规定首都哥伦比亚地区的治安、医疗、教育，甚至包括律师如何在该地区执业。哥伦比亚地区是少数网课LLM可以考bar的司法区，任何一个外州执业满3年可以直接申请在该区执业。反观纽约州就不允许加州律师免考申请执业，其他即使能申请的州，也不能免除学历要求。
About 27% of U.S. land is owned by the federal government, mostly concentrated in western states. Nearly 80% of the land in Nevada is federal land, but Las Vegas and other major cities along Interstate 80 are not included. Congress has the power to legislate to protect wildlife on federal lands, even if the land is located within state borders [Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976)].
美国国土的约27%归联邦所有，这主要集中在西部的州，内华达州有将近80%的土地是联邦土地，但拉斯维加斯和其他沿着80号公路的大城市不在其列。国会有权立法保护联邦土地上的野生动物，即使该土地位于州界内[Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976)]。
宪法的修改Amendment of the Constitution
Article V of the Constitution provides for the proposal and ratification of constitutional amendments. A constitutional amendment requires the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures or state ratifying conventions to pass, which is much more difficult than the amendment (proposal or repeal) of ordinary laws.
宪法第5条规定了宪法修正案的提出和通过。宪法修正案需要四分之三的州议会或州制宪会议同意才能通过，比一般的法律修改（提出、废除）要困难很多。
The Constitution itself does not specify the exact method of amendment; modifying the original text directly each time would not be impossible. During the first amendment process, there was a proposal to alter the Constitution itself beyond recognition, but it was ultimately abandoned. To this day, after the first ten amendments were passed all at once, passing one amendment at a time to coexist with the original text has become the customary way to amend the Constitution. However, this does not mean that new amendments cannot overturn previous provisions. For example, the Eleventh Amendment narrowed the scope of federal judicial power in Article III, and the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment. Many amendments repeatedly deliberate on trivial (yet important) specific matters such as elections and succession, such as the president being limited to two consecutive terms, and the vice president succeeding the president when the latter is unable to discharge their duties. We will not study provisions that are not tested on the exam.
宪法本身并没有规定修改的具体方法，每次都在原文上直接修改也未尝不可。第一次修宪就有方案是将宪法本身改得面目全非，但最后被放弃了。时至今日，在第一次修改一次性通过了10条修正案之后，每次只通过一条修正案和宪法原文并存成为了修改宪法惯用的方式。但这并不表示新的修正案不能推翻之前的内容，比如第11修正案就限缩了第3条中联邦司法权的范围，第18修正案（禁酒令）又被第21修正案废止。很多修正案是在反复斟酌选举和继任这种琐碎（但重要）的具体事项，比如总统只能连任两届，总统无法履行职责时由副总统继任。我们不会学习没有考点的条款。
This "adding one at a time" approach has allowed the original text of the Constitution from centuries ago and the vast majority of the provisions in the first ten amendments to remain in use today.
这种“每次只加一条”的方式让几百年前的宪法原文和前10条修正案中的绝大部分条款直到今天还在被沿用。
最高法律Supreme Law
Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are the supreme law of the land. If they conflict with state law, state judges must first abide by federal law. Executive orders or executive agreements issued by the President pursuant to laws and treaties are also considered supreme over state law.
宪法第6条第2款规定合众国宪法、法律和盟约是国家的最高法律（supreme law of the land），如果和州法相抵触，各州的法官应首先遵守联邦法。总统依据法律和盟约签发的行政命令（executive order）或行政协议（executive agreement）也被认为是高于州法的。
A state allows the use of marijuana, while the federal government prohibits it; federal law preempts [Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)].
州允许使用大麻，联邦禁止使用大麻，联邦法优先[Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)]。
To protect human rights, the President enters into a self-executing treaty with a third country requiring that abortion procedures be legalized throughout the United States. The Senate ratifies it by a two-thirds majority. The President then issues an executive order based on the treaty, invalidating the laws of several states that punish doctors who perform abortions. This is constitutional.
为了保障人权，总统和第三国订立自动生效的盟约，要求实施堕胎手术在全美都必须合法化。参议院以三分之二多数通过。总统又发布行政命令，根据该盟约废除若干个州关于惩罚实施堕胎手术医生的法律。这是合宪的。
Federal law preempts state law in two ways: express preemption and implied preemption. The former occurs when a law explicitly states that federal law governs in a certain field, or directly prohibits states from enacting related legislation.
联邦法通过两种方式被优先适用：明示优先（express preemption）和默示优先（implied preemption），前者是法律明确表示在某领域以联邦法为准，或者直接禁止州进行有关的立法。
Exam questions will sometimes imply that the only possibility for federal law to preempt is if the federal law explicitly states its preemption over state law. This is an incorrect option because there are also situations of implied preemption.
考题中有时候会暗示你联邦法优先的唯一可能性是联邦法明确表示优先于州法，这是错误选项，因为还有默示优先的情形。
Federal law regulates cigarette advertising and promotion, and prohibits state laws from making related provisions. Smokers sued tobacco companies for fraud under the framework of state tort law. The tobacco companies defended by arguing that their advertisements complied with federal law and that federal law should preempt. The Supreme Court held that federal law regulates smoking and health, while state law regulates fraud and torts; the two do not conflict, and state tort law is not preempted by federal laws governing smoking and health [Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008)]. Similarly, the fact that a drug's label complies with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements does not immunize the drug manufacturer from state tort lawsuits, especially when the federal government does not even provide a remedy for the manufacturer's tortious conduct [Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)].
联邦法规范了香烟的广告和推销，并禁止州法作出相关规定。吸烟者在州侵权法的框架下起诉烟草公司的欺诈行为，烟草公司抗辩认为他们的广告符合联邦法的规定，且联邦法应当优先被适用（preemption）。最高法院认为，联邦法是对吸烟和健康的规定，州法是对欺诈和侵权的规定，二者并不冲突，州侵权法没有被联邦管理吸烟和健康的法律所替代[Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008)]。同样，药物的标签符合联邦药物管理局（FDA）的要求也不会让药商免于州侵权法的诉讼，尤其是联邦甚至都没有为药商的侵权行为提供救济[Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009)]。
A municipality may penalize ships docked in its port for excessive emissions, even if the ships have passed federal inspections. This penalty also does not violate the Commerce Clause because it does not discriminate against out-of-state ships, nor does it impose an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. [Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, 362 U.S. 440 (1960)]
市政处可以对停放在港口排放超标的船只进行处罚，即使船通过了联邦法的检测。该处罚也不违反贸易条款，因为没有歧视外州船只，也没有对跨州贸易施加不合理的负担。[Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, 362 U.S. 440 (1960)]
Implied preemption occurs in the following three situations. The first is a direct conflict between state law and federal law.
默示优先发生在下面三种情形，首先就是州法和联邦法直接冲突。
Federal law provides that both state and federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a certain type of case, but state law instructs state courts not to hear such cases. The state law is invalid because it violates federal law. [Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009)]
联邦法规定州法院和联邦法院都有听取某类案子的管辖权，但州法却指示州法院不要听取这类案件，州法因违反联邦法而无效。[Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009)]
The second category is when state law conflicts with the purpose of federal law.
第二类是州法和联邦法的目的相冲突。
The bankruptcy system is designed to give people a fresh start. If a federal court has declared an individual's debts discharged due to bankruptcy, but the state still imposes various restrictions on those who have not paid off their debts, this conflicts with the purpose of federal bankruptcy law and should be invalid. [Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971)]
破产制度是为了给人一个全新的开始，如果联邦法院已经宣布个人因为破产免除了所有债务，州却依然给未付清债务的人提出种种限制，这和联邦破产法的目的相冲突，应当是无效的。[Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637 (1971)]
The last category is when state law involves an exclusive federal field, such as immigration, the postal service, or the military draft.
最后一类是州法涉及了联邦的专属领域，比如移民、邮局、征兵等。
The federal government requires aliens to comply with immigration laws. State law cannot make related provisions regarding aliens within the state, not even by creating a misdemeanor to punish aliens who fail to comply with federal law. [Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)]
联邦规定外国人需要遵守移民法，州法不能对州内的外国人进行有关的规定，哪怕设立一个轻罪惩罚没有遵守联邦法的外国人也不行。[Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)]
宣誓拥护宪法Oath to Support the Constitution
Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that all executive, legislative, and judicial officers of the United States and of the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification.
宪法第6条第3款规定合众国和各州的一切行政、立法、司法官员均应宣誓或宣告拥护宪法，但不得要求以宗教誓言作为前提条件。
The oath of office is in the text of the Constitution, and so is freedom of speech. We need to strike a balance between the two, so not all oaths are considered constitutional by the courts. Generally, oaths requiring the support of the federal and state constitutions are upheld [Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)], and oaths requiring one not to overthrow the government by force, violence, or illegal means are upheld [Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972)]. However, oaths requiring respect for the flag and reverence for law and order have been struck down for being too vague and broad [Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964)].
就职宣誓是宪法原文，言论自由也同样是宪法原文。我们需要在两者之间取得一个平衡，所以并不是所有誓词都能被法庭认为合宪。一般来说，要求维护联邦宪法和州宪法的誓词可以被采用[Connell v. Higgenbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)]，要求不采取武力、暴力和非法手段推翻政府的誓词可以被采用[Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972)]。但要求尊敬旗帜、敬畏法律和秩序的誓词就因为太模糊宽泛没有通过[Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964)]。
In contrast, it is unconstitutional to require candidates to swear that their party does not have a platform of overthrowing the government by force. The Court held that merely having a platform of overthrowing the government by force does not necessarily mean the party is inciting imminent lawless action. [Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974)]
作为对比，如果要求候选人宣誓他们党不以暴力推翻政权为纲领则是违宪的。法院认为，仅仅以暴力推翻政权为纲领并不必然意味着该政党煽动紧迫现实的违法行为。[Communist Party v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974)]
All 50 states require attorneys to take an oath before taking office. Although not tested, we can preview the oath for California attorneys. Compared to the other 49 states, California's oath is quite short:
50个州都要求律师在就职之前宣誓。虽然不是考点，我们可以提前预习一下加州律师的宣誓誓词。和其他49个州相比，加州的誓词可以说相当短：
That is correct, an attorney is also an officer of the court, which places attorneys in the same position as judges, clerks, and prosecutors.
没有错，律师也是法庭的工作人员，这把律师和法官、书记员、检察官摆在了同样的位置。
宪法生效Ratification of the Constitution
Article VII (the last article) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution shall take effect upon ratification by nine states, and shall be established between the states so ratifying the same. The Constitution was drafted in 1787, reached the required nine ratifications to take effect in 1788, officially went into operation in 1789, and was ratified by the last of the 13 original states in 1790.
宪法第7条（最后一条）规定本宪法在9个州批准（ratify）后生效，并且在批准它的州实行。该宪法1787年成文，1788年达到9个州批准生效，1789年正式开始实行，1790年得到13个州中的最后一个州批准。
第1-10修正案Amendments I-X
权利法案The Bill of Rights
The original Constitution was fiercely opposed by the "Anti-Federalists," who feared that the federal government's power would be too great and restrict individual liberty. To appease their opposition, the "Federalists" who supported the Constitution proposed adding provisions limiting government power as amendments. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also known as the United States Bill of Rights.
最初的宪法被“反联邦党人”尖锐反对，他们担心联邦政府的权力过大而限制了个人自由。支持宪法的“联邦党人”为了平息他们的反对，提出将限制政府权力的条款以修正案的方式加入宪法。这就是宪法的前10条修正案，也叫做《权利法案》（United States Bill of Rights）。
The Bill of Rights initially restricted only the federal government, not state governments [Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)], until the later passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to observe due process and afford equal protection to all persons, which includes states respecting the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For simplicity, in the Constitutional Law section, we assume that all civil rights listed in the Bill of Rights are incorporated against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, we will find that this is not entirely the case when we get to the Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure sections.
《权利法案》起初只限制联邦政府，不限制州政府[Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)]，直到后来第14修正案的通过。第14修正案规定州也要遵守正当程序，并给予所有人平等的保护，这就包括州也要尊重权利法案列出的各项权利。为了简单起见，我们在宪法篇认为权利法案列出的公民权利全部通过14修正案适用于州政府和更低一级的政府。但是，我们到刑诉篇和民诉篇的时候会发现并不完全如此。
If the original text of the Constitution is primarily about the operation of the government, the amendments are primarily about the protection of individual rights and the limitation of government power. This will be our focus moving forward.
如果说宪法原文主要说的是政府的运作，那么修正案主要说的是对个人权利的保护、对政府权力的限制。这也是我们接下来的重点。
扶持和限制宗教Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion
The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which we commonly refer to as the Establishment Clause. It is easy to determine that if a law favors any religion, it is definitely unconstitutional, even if the law favors all religions equally—because there are also atheists. Let's first learn the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Establishment Clause through cases.
第1修正案规定国会不得制定扶持宗教的法律，我们通常称这一条为扶持条款（Establishment Clause）。很容易判断的是，如果一条法律优待了任何宗教肯定是违宪的，即使这条法律公平优待了所有宗教——因为还有无神论者。我们先通过案例来学习最高法院对扶持条款的一系列精神。
Religious organizations cannot have the power to veto liquor licenses for nearby businesses [Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982)]. Inviting clergy to pray before state legislature or city council meetings is a long-standing tradition upheld by the Court, even if Christian ministers make up the vast majority. The Supreme Court requires that the selection of clergy not exclude specific religions and that non-believers not be coerced to participate in the prayer [Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014)]. Government-funded displays of the Ten Commandments for religious purposes violate the Establishment Clause [McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)], but they can be displayed alongside nearly 40 other monuments representing the state's "people, ideals, and events" [Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)]. Decorating with Christmas trees and Santa Claus is not establishing religion, but displaying only a nativity scene would be considered an establishment of religion [County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)]. A state government cannot require employers to absolutely allow their Jewish employees to take the Sabbath off, as such a law clearly aims to establish Judaism, but the government can require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees' religious beliefs. The government can exempt religious organizations from employment discrimination restrictions, such as allowing a church-run gymnasium to fire non-believers, while prohibiting secular gymnasiums from firing employees based on religion [Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)].
宗教组织不能有权否定周边酒商的营业执照[Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982)]。州议会、市议会开会之前请牧师来祷告是悠久的传统，法院予以维持，即使基督教的牧师占了绝大多数。最高法院要求从牧师的池子里邀请人的时候不排除特定宗教，也不强迫不信仰该宗教的人一同祷告[Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014)]。政府为了宗教目的出资展示基督教十诫（Ten Commandments）是违反扶持条款的[McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)]，但是可以和其他近40个画像一同展示该州的“人物、理想和重大事件”[Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)] 。圣诞节装饰圣诞树、圣诞老人不是扶持宗教，但是如果仅仅装饰耶稣诞生的场景（nativity scene）会被认为是扶持宗教 [County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)] 。州政府不能要求雇主一定允许他们的犹太教员工在安息日（Sabbath）休息，因为这种法律明显是为了扶持犹太教，但政府可以要求他们的雇主对雇员的信仰作出合理安排。政府可以免除宗教产业的就业歧视限制，比如允许教会运营的体育馆解除不信仰该教的人，却禁止世俗的体育馆依据宗教信仰解除员工[Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)] 。
Immediately following the clause prohibiting the establishment of religion, the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. In short, regarding religion, the government can neither establish nor prohibit it. Government subsidies and tax exemptions applied neutrally across the board are almost always upheld, even if some or even most of the funds happen to benefit religion, without violating the Establishment Clause. However, if the government deliberately excludes religion-related beneficiaries to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, it must be careful, as this may primarily violate the Free Exercise Clause.
宪法第1修正案在禁止扶持宗教的条款之后紧接着就禁止政府限制人们的宗教信仰自由（free exercise）。总之对于宗教，政府扶持也不行，禁止也不行。政府给一视同仁的补贴和免税政策几乎永远被维持，即使其中有部分甚至大部分资金恰好资助了宗教，也不违反扶持条款。但如果政府为了避免违反扶持条款特意把和宗教相关的受益人剔除，则反而要小心，首先它可能违反了宗教自由。
Promoting religion in public primary and secondary schools is highly likely to be prohibited. Prohibited activities include organizing prayers, offering (optional) religious classes, displaying the Ten Commandments, and arranging invocations at graduation ceremonies. Disguising prayer as a "moment of silence and meditation" is impermissible, and making it optional is also impermissible (as non-believing students would be isolated by believing students and teachers) [School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)]. Laws prohibiting schools from teaching evolution have been struck down as unconstitutional because such laws are typically motivated by the religious purpose of establishing creationism. However, non-coercive prayer conducted by a teacher in a private capacity is not an establishment of religion [Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022)].
在公立中小学内宣传宗教大概率被禁止的。已经被禁止的包括组织祷告、开设（可选的）宗教课、摆放十诫、安排毕业典礼上的祈福。把祷告伪装成“静默和冥想”是不行的，可选的也不行（不信教的同学会被信教的同学和老师孤立起来）[School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)]。禁止学校教授进化论的法律被判违宪，因为这样的法律通常都是出于扶持宗教的神创论。但老师以私人身份进行的不具有强迫性的祈祷不是扶持宗教[Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 US ___ (2022)]。
As we learned in the Judicial Power section, general taxpayers do not have standing to challenge how Congress appropriates funds under its spending power, with the sole exception of Establishment Clause violations. Even if Congress's establishment of religion causes no particularized injury to a specific taxpayer, the taxpayer may still bring a lawsuit. It should be noted that the source of congressional legislation must be the Taxing and Spending Clause (because only then does it affect the taxpayer's tax money); if the legislation is based on other sources of power (such as the Property Clause) [Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982)], or if the government merely uses general discretionary appropriations to establish religion [Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007)], general taxpayers still lack standing. Of course, individuals directly affected by the Establishment Clause violation always have standing as proper plaintiffs.
我们在司法权学过，国会用支出权拨款用作什么用途，一般纳税人并不是适格的原告，违反扶持条款是唯一的例外。即使国会扶持宗教对某个特定的纳税人并没有特别的损害，纳税人也可以提出诉讼。需要注意的是国会立法的来源必须是支出条款（因为这样才影响了纳税人的税金），如果是用其他法源立法（比如管理联邦财产的权力）[Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982)]，或者只是政府将一般的可自由支配拨款用作扶持宗教[Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007)]，一般纳税人依然不是适格的主体。当然，被扶持条款直接影响的主体永远是适格的原告。
The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause do not conflict. When considering whether a government action unconstitutionally establishes or restricts religion, the standard is to refer to the Founding Fathers' intent in establishing the clause and the spirit of past Supreme Court precedents, namely "historical practices and understandings" [Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, supra]. Prior to 2022, the standard from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (Lemon test) was used to determine whether the government unconstitutionally established religion, examining whether the statute itself had a secular purpose, whether its principal or primary effect advanced or inhibited religion, and whether it fostered an excessive government entanglement with religion. Although the Supreme Court shifted to the historical practices and understandings standard in 2022, many conclusions previously reached under the Lemon test remain valid if they align with historical tradition.
扶持条款和宗教自由条款是不冲突的，考虑一个政府行为是否违宪地扶持或限制了宗教，标准是参考国父们设立该条款的意图和最高法院过往判例的精神，即历史实践和理解（historical practices and understandings）[Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, supra]。在2022年之前，我们用Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)一案的标准来判断政府是否违宪地扶持了宗教（Lemon test），考察法条本身是不是世俗的，法条的主要效果是不是扶持或限制了宗教，以及政府是不是和宗教产生了过多的瓜葛。虽然2022年最高法院改用了历史实践和理解标准，但过去许多在Lemon标准下得出的结论，如果符合历史传统，依然有效。
There will always be people who come up with bizarre beliefs. The Supreme Court has never denied any religious belief, as long as it is "sincerely held" (sincerity). A belief does not require the recognition of a supreme being (God, Allah).
总会有人冒出一些奇奇怪怪的信仰，最高法院从未否认过任何一种宗教信仰，只要的确是“真诚相信”（sincerity）即可，信仰不要求对超人类存在（上帝、真主）的认可。
Courts do not judge the truthfulness of religious beliefs [United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)]. Therefore, if someone testifies that God spoke to them, the court cannot convict the witness of perjury based solely on this. However, the court can determine whether the witness sincerely holds the religious belief they profess.
法院不去判断宗教信仰的真实性[United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)]，所以如果有人作证说上帝和他说话了，法院不能仅凭这点就判证人作伪证。但法院可以判断证人是否真诚地信仰他所说的宗教。
The Free Exercise Clause requires that the government not punish citizens or deny them benefits because of their religious beliefs; or, if it must do so, the action must at least pass strict scrutiny.
宗教自由条款要求政府不得因为宗教信仰惩罚公民或者减少公民的福利，或者如果一定要这么做的话，至少要通过严格审查。
The government may not prohibit religious clergy from holding public office [McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)].
政府不得禁止宗教神职人员担任公职[McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)]。
Public school teachers may not be prohibited from praying silently when students are not present [Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, supra].
不得禁止公校教师在学生不在的时候默默祷告[Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, supra]。
Even if a religious person violates state law by refusing to provide services to homosexuals, regulatory agencies cannot act with hostility toward their religious beliefs. [Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)]
即使信教的人不为同性恋提供服务违反了州法，监管机构也不能对他们的信仰富有敌意。[Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)]
Denying scholarships to theology students does not violate the Free Exercise Clause [Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004)].
不为神学学生提供奖学金不违反宗教自由的条款 [Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004)]。
However, providing resurfacing materials for all playgrounds but excluding church playgrounds violates the Free Exercise Clause. [Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017)] The Court reasoned that the government may deny funding to someone who is going to study devotional theology (what they are doing), but it cannot deny funding simply because the applicant is a church (who they are). For the same reason, if a district does not operate public schools but instead subsidizes residents to attend private schools, it cannot deny the subsidy just because a resident chooses a religious school [Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)].
但为所有操场提供一些翻修材料，仅仅把教堂的操场排除在外违反了宗教自由的条款。[Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017)] 法院认为我们可以拒绝为即将去学习宗教（要做的事情）的人提供资金，但不能仅仅因为申请人是一所教堂（是谁）就拒绝提供资金。基于同样的理由，如果一个地区没有开设公立学校，而是赞助居民去私立学校读书，不能因为居民选择了宗教学校而拒绝赞助[Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)]。
Article VI of the Constitution explicitly provides that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, but this seemingly applies only to the federal government. The Supreme Court further clarified that state governments also may not require officials to declare a belief in God when taking an oath of office, as doing so violates the Free Exercise Clause. [Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)]
宪法第6条明确规定不得以宗教誓词作为官员入职的前提条件，但似乎只适用于联邦政府。最高法院进一步明确州政府也不得要求官员宣誓就职的时候信仰上帝，否则违反了宗教自由的条款。[Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)]
A frequently tested point is that if the government merely regulates general conduct, and it incidentally burdens religious interests, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Otherwise, given the broad definition of religious belief, people could violate any law in the name of religion. For example, various taxes must be paid honestly, even if they conflict with religious doctrine; illegal drugs and animal protection laws are not exempted simply because of the needs of religious rituals. This is easy to understand. However, there are two exceptions: (1) If a religious organization wishes to adjust the employment of its ministers, courts should avoid interfering through anti-employment discrimination laws; religious organizations should have the freedom to choose their own ministers. (2) If an unemployed person refuses to find a new job for religious reasons, the government should not deny unemployment benefits solely on that basis.
经常被考到的是，如果政府只是规范一般的行为，那恰好损害了宗教的利益是不违反宗教自由的条款的，不然以宗教信仰的定义之宽泛，人们会以宗教之名违反任何法律。比如各种税，哪怕不符合教义，也必须老实交纳；违禁药品、保护动物，也不会因为宗教仪式的需要就得以豁免。这很好理解。但有两个例外：（1）宗教如果要调整自己神职人员的职务，法院应当避免用反就业歧视来干涉，宗教应当有选择自己神职人员的自由。（2）如果失业人员因为宗教原因不愿意找新的工作，政府不应当仅因此就拒绝发放失业救济金。
A law prohibiting the slaughter of animals in religious rituals cannot pass strict scrutiny [Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)]. However, a law prohibiting anyone from treating animals cruelly is constitutional; if a religion cruelly sacrifices animals in a ritual, its members can be convicted for violating this law.
禁止在宗教活动中屠宰动物的法律无法通过严格审查[Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)]。但禁止任何人用残忍的手段对待动物的法律合宪，如果宗教在仪式中残忍地献祭动物，可以因为违反这条法律而被定罪。
If an unemployed person stops working because their faith forbids them from working on their Sabbath [Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)], or because they are unwilling to produce weapons that cause killing [Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981)], the government should not deny unemployment benefits solely for this reason.
如果失业人员因为信仰不愿意在休息日工作[Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)]，或者不愿意生产造成杀戮的武器[Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981)]而停工，政府不应该仅仅因此就拒绝发放补助。
言论、出版、集会和请愿自由Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition
低价值的言论Low-Value Speech
The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech, the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
宪法第1修正案禁止国会制定剥夺言论（speech），出版（press），和平集会（peaceably to assemble）和请愿（petition the government for a redress of grievances）的自由。
Freedom of speech is a vast topic and is tested every year. The general principle is that laws restricting freedom of speech, whether enacted by the federal or state governments, generally must pass strict scrutiny, meaning they are almost impossible to uphold. However, freedom of speech always has boundaries. In some situations, laws restricting speech only need to pass intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review, and some categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment at all, allowing the government to regulate them freely.
言论自由是一个庞大的话题，每年必考。大原则就是无论联邦还是州政府，限制言论自由的法律一般都要通过严格审查，也就是几乎不可能通过审查。但言论自由总是有边界的，在一些情况下限制言论的法律只需要通过中等审查、理性审查，甚至部分言论压根就不受宪法第1修正案的保护，政府可以任意监管。
Let us first study these unprotected categories of speech. The government can regulate them freely; for example, completely banning them is permissible.
我们先学习这些不受保护的言论，对于这些言论，政府可以任意监管，比如完全禁止都没有关系。
Speech disclosing classified operations to be conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies is clearly not protected by the Constitution [Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)], and the same is obviously true for speech disclosing the impending Normandy landings during World War II.
披露美国情报局将要进行的机密行动的言论显然不受宪法保护[Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280 (1981)]，二战期间披露即将进行诺曼底登录的言论显然也是如此。
Speech disclosing trade secrets is not immune from liability for breach of contract or tort simply because of the First Amendment.
泄露商业秘密的言论不会因为宪法第1修正案就免于违约或者侵权的责任。
Speech criticizing a judge outside the courtroom does not constitute speech inciting lawless action unless it presents a clear and present danger of immediately interfering with the administration of justice. [Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962)]
在法庭外批评法官的言论如果不是会立刻干扰到诉讼活动的进行，不属于挑起违法行为的言论。[Wood v. Georgia, 370 U. S. 375 (1962)]
If statements made by Trump to a marching crowd are found to be directed to inciting imminent lawless action and are likely to produce such action, they are not protected by the Constitution. [Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)]
如果特朗普对游行群众说的言论被认定为旨在煽动迫在眉睫的违法行为，且很可能导致该行为，则不是被宪法保护的言论。[Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)]
The phrase "Fuck the Draft" was considered merely an expression of dissatisfaction with the draft system and not fighting words. [Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)]
“Fuck the Draft”被认为只是表达对征兵制度的不满，不是挑衅的语言。[Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)]
Mere nudity usually does not meet the standard for obscenity, so photoshopping the President's head onto a naked man's body remains constitutionally protected speech.
仅仅裸露身体（nudity）通常达不到淫秽的标准，所以将总统的头用图像处理的方式拼接到裸男身上依然是宪法保护的言论。
Speech that is unsuitable for children is not unprotected speech. The government cannot deny adults access to content simply because it is unsuitable for children, but appropriate regulation is permissible. For example, public libraries may install software to block content unsuitable for children (in that case, the software could be disabled upon an adult's request) [United States v. American Library Association, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003)]. Furthermore, the government can regulate pornography featuring actual children even if it does not meet the standard for obscenity [New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)]. The interest in protecting children is so compelling that criminalizing the distribution, solicitation, and possession of child pornography is not unconstitutional [United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)]. Conversely, if the actors are actually adults but merely appear to be children (virtual child pornography), it falls within the scope of constitutional protection [Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)].
少儿不宜的言论不是不受宪法保护的言论。政府不能仅仅因为内容不适合让儿童接触就让成年人也无法访问，但合适的监管是可以的，比如公共图书馆可以安装软件禁止少儿不宜的内容（该案中成年人要求时可以关闭软件）[United States v. American Library Association, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003)]。此外如果由儿童出演的色情影片即使没有达到下流言论的标准，政府也可以监管[New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)]，保护儿童的利益是如此重要，即使将提供、索取、持有儿童色情影片都定义为犯罪也是不违宪的[United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)]。但相反如果本来是成人出演，只是看起来是儿童，则属于宪法保护的范围[Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)]。
In addition to the five categories of completely unprotected speech mentioned above, we will now study the following two categories of less protected speech. However, we must emphasize that these two categories of speech are still protected by the Constitution.
除了上述5类完全不受宪法保护的言论，我们再学习下面两类保护程度较低的言论。但我们要强调的是，这两类言论依然是受到宪法保护的。
The government may prohibit the sale of indecent magazines to minors [Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)] in order to protect children. The government may also establish specific zoning regulations for adult entertainment businesses [City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)] to prevent the secondary effects of such speech, such as increased crime.
政府可以禁止将不雅的杂志销售给未成年人[Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)]，这是为了保护儿童。政府也可以设立特定的区域管制成人产业[City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986)]，这是为了防止言论带来的次生效应（secondary effects），比如滋生犯罪。
Criminalizing the "transmission of obscene or indecent messages to persons under 18 via the Internet" is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court held that it should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. Unlike the two cases above, this law directly restricted the content of speech (content-based), rather than restricting the time, place, and manner of expression, nor did it target the secondary effects of the speech. Furthermore, compared to traditional media like magazines and movies, speech on the Internet is often published by private individuals (rather than commercial entities) and should be freer. Finally, the law was overly broad and vague, and it was not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means, thus failing strict scrutiny. [Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]
将“通过互联网向18岁以下的人传播淫秽或不雅的信息”定为犯罪行为是违宪的，最高法院认为应当用严格标准审查。和上述两个案例不同，这部法律直接限制言论的内容（content-based），不是限制发表言论的方式方法，也不是限制言论带来的次生效应。其次，互联网相比杂志、电影等传统媒介，其言论通常由私人（而不是商业实体）发表，应当更加自由。最后，这部法律过于宽泛和模糊不清，也没有做到量身定做、最小侵害，无法通过严格标准审查。[Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]
Laws banning public nudity are valid. Although nudity does not meet the standard for "obscenity," the government's ban on public nudity serves a substantial interest in preventing crime and secondary illegal activities [Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000)].
禁止在公共场合裸露身体的法律是有效的，虽然裸露身体没有达到“淫秽”的标准，但政府禁止裸露身体是为了维护其避免犯罪和带来的次生违法行为的重要利益[Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M, 529 U.S. 277 (2000)]。
Banning all advertisements for abortions, contraceptives, drug prices, legal services, and liquor prices is unconstitutional. Although intermediate scrutiny does not require the government's restriction to be the least restrictive means, it must at least be narrowly tailored to the government's interest; across-the-board bans usually fail intermediate scrutiny. Since prescription drugs can only be prescribed by doctors, can the government require that prescription drug advertisements be directed only at doctors? The answer is no. The government must explain why banning the advertisement is necessary, rather than merely a convenient means to achieve its interest (preventing prescription drug abuse) [Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002)].
禁止一切流产、避孕、药价、法律服务、酒价的广告是违宪的，虽然中等审查不要求政府的限制是最小侵害的（least restrictive），但至少要是为政府利益量身定做的（narrowly tailored），一刀切的禁止政策通常无法通过中等标准审查。处方药既然只有医生能开，那是否要求处方药只能对医生做广告？答案是否定的，政府需要解释为什么禁止广告是必要的，而不仅仅是实现其利益（滥用处方药）的便利手段[Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535 U.S. 357 (2002)]。
Laws requiring the disclosure of side effects in drug labeling are generally upheld, as long as they do not unduly burden the business. To protect victims' families from harassment, lawyers can be prohibited from contacting families to solicit business for a certain period of time after an accident.
要求药品说明书中披露副作用这类法律通常能够被维持，只要不是过度加重商家的负担。为了保护受害者家属不受到骚扰，可以禁止律师在事故后一定时间内接触家属招揽业务。
To protect patients from deception, optometrists can be prohibited from practicing under trade names for advertising purposes, because trade names themselves do not convey any information, let alone using a clearly misleading trade name like "Texas State Optical." [Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., 440 U.S. 1 (1979)]
为了保护患者不受欺骗，可以禁止验光师注册商号用于宣传，因为商号本身并不传递任何信息，更何况用的是“得克萨斯州立验光师”这种明显充满误导的商号。[Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., 440 U.S. 1 (1979)]
政府言论Government Speech
The First Amendment restricts the government from depriving people of their freedom of speech, but it does not restrict what the government itself wants to say. The government may also choose to fund only those who speak on its behalf. However, sometimes it appears not as "funding favored speech" but as "punishing disfavored speech," which is impermissible. We need to strike a balance here.
我们限制的是政府剥夺人民的言论自由，如果政府自己想说什么不受此限。政府也可以只把资金提供给帮自己说话的人。但有时候看起来不是“资助喜欢的言论”而是“惩罚自己不喜欢的言论”，后者是不允许的，我们需要把握这个度。
A state university (government action) that funds student activities but specifically excludes religious activities violates the freedom of speech. [Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)]
州立大学（政府行为）赞助一切学生活动，但仅仅把宗教活动排除在外，这违反了言论自由。[Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)]
The government provides payroll deductions for union dues but prohibits the deducted funds from being used for political activities. This is not "punishing" political activities, but merely "not funding" them, and it only needs to pass the rational basis test. [Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353 (2009)]
政府给工会会费提供工资代扣代缴，但禁止代扣代缴的资金被用于政治活动，这不是“惩罚”政治活动，只是“不资助”政治活动，通过理性审查标准即可。[Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353 (2009)]
License plates in the United States are often customizable, but the government can refuse to approve license plate designs it deems inappropriate. Because license plates bear the state name and motto, they are considered government speech. [Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015)]
美国的车牌号通常都是可以订制的，但政府可以拒绝批准他认为不合适的车牌号。因为车牌上有州名和州格言，它被视为政府言论。[Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015)]
If the government's display of a Ten Commandments monument does not violate the Establishment Clause, it also does not violate the Free Speech Clause. The government is not required to accommodate requests from all other religions to display their monuments [Van Orden, supra].
政府展示基督教十诫纪念碑如果不违反扶持（宗教）条款，也就不违反言论自由条款，政府没有必要满足所有其他宗教提出展示纪念碑的要求[Van Orden, supra]。
The government can express its viewpoints by first levying taxes and then using the tax revenues. It can even openly establish specific assessments solely for the purpose of expressing a viewpoint.
政府可以通过先征税，然后通过税金来表达观点。甚至可以光明正大地专门为表达观点立项收费。
Beef producers can be compelled to pay assessments used to promote government-approved beef advertising. Such advertising constitutes government speech. [Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005)]
牛肉生产商可以被强迫收费用于宣传政府批准的牛肉。该广告是政府言论。[Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005)]
However, non-union members cannot be forced to pay union dues—even if they benefit from the union's collective bargaining. Union speech is not government speech, and private individuals cannot be compelled to pay to support the speech of another private entity. [Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)]
但非工会成员不能被迫交纳工会会费——即使他们从工会的抗争中获得好处。工会言论不是政府言论，私人不能强行被收费支持另外一个私人的言论。[Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)]
However, the government generally cannot attach conditions to funding in a way that infringes upon people's constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech and other constitutional rights.
但政府通常不能用给资金附加条件的方式在侵犯人民的宪法权利，这包括言论自由的权利和其他宪法权利。
The government is not entirely prohibited from attaching conditions to funding, but the purpose of the funding and the attached requirements must be closely related, and they must be viewpoint-neutral. For example, requiring organizations fighting HIV/AIDS to explicitly adopt a policy opposing prostitution violates the freedom of speech. [Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, 570 U.S. 205 (2013)]
政府并非不能够给资金附加条件，但提供资金的目的和附加的要求之间要紧密相关，而且必须观点中立（viewpoint neutual）。比如要求抗击艾滋病的组织表态反对性交易就违反了言论自由。[Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, 570 U.S. 205 (2013)]
However, art is an exception; the government is not required to fund all art. When selecting art for funding, it is impossible for the government to remain viewpoint-neutral. [National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)]
但艺术品是除外的，政府不必赞助所有艺术品。政府在挑选艺术品的时候，不可能做到观点中立。[Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)]
政府雇员的言论Speech by Government Employees
Government employees must be more cautious with their speech compared to the general public. If an employee's speech is made pursuant to their official duties, then firing them for that speech is certainly lawful [Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)].
政府雇员相比于一般的民众要更加谨言慎行。如果他的言论是履行其官方职责（pursuant to official duties）的一部分，那么解雇他当然是合法的[Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)]。
If the speech does not relate to a matter of public concern, the government employer has broad discretion to punish the employee, and the employee receives almost no First Amendment protection.
如果发表的是和公众关切无关的言论，政府雇主有广泛的自由裁量权对其进行惩罚，雇员几乎不受第一修正案保护。
If the speech is an evaluation of their employer—usually a negative one—the court must balance the citizen's right to criticize against whether the speech will impair the performance of their duties.
如果发表的言论恰恰是对他的雇主的评价——通常是负面评价——那么法院需要在公民批评的权利和言论是否会影响他行使职责两个因素之间权衡。
A public school teacher cannot be fired solely for criticizing the way the school handled a proposal [Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)]. Even expressing regret that an assassination attempt on President Reagan failed cannot serve as grounds for firing a clerical employee; her speech was merely viewed as a criticism of the President's policies [Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987)].
公立学校的教师不得仅因为批评学校处理某项提议的方式就被解雇[Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)]。甚至对刺杀里根总统的行动未能得逞表示遗憾也不能作为解雇一个文职人员的理由，他的言论仅仅被视为对总统政策的批评[Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987)]。
Although an assistant district attorney distributing a questionnaire in the office did not severely disrupt the work environment, it was clearly an act of insubordination. Here, the priority of obeying superiors' work arrangements outweighed her right to exercise freedom of speech. [Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)]
检察官在办公室散发问卷调查表虽然没有严重扰乱工作环境，但明显是他不服从安排的表现，在这里服从上级工作安排的优先级要高于他行使言论自由的权利。[Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)]
Furthermore, while the law may prohibit high-level government officials from receiving honoraria for speeches, publications, or ribbon-cutting ceremonies, there is no need to prohibit ordinary government employees from doing so [United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995)].
此外，法律或许可以禁止政府高层通过演讲、出版、剪彩来收取酬金，但没有必要禁止一般的政府员工这么做[United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995)]。
对内容的限制Content-Based Restrictions
Content-based restrictions almost always trigger strict scrutiny.
对内容（content based）的限制几乎总是要用严格标准的审查。
A law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors fails to pass strict scrutiny. [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)]
禁止向未成年人出售暴力游戏的法律无法通过严格审查。[Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)]
Empowering an administrator to decide which parades with certain content can be approved and which cannot constitutes content-based censorship and is unconstitutional. [Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)] Allowing an administrator to determine security fees is also impermissible, because controversial parades require more security and thus incur higher fees, which amounts to de facto content-based censorship. [Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)]
设置管理员决定什么样内容的游行能批准、什么样的游行不能批准，这是内容审查，违宪。[Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)] 让管理员决定安保费用也不行，因为引发争议的游行需要更多的安保从而费用较高，这是事实上的内容审查。[Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)]
Providing material support to terrorist organizations is also considered part of freedom of speech, and restrictions on it are content-based, requiring strict scrutiny. However, because the congressional act precisely defined terrorist organizations and material support, and was narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of combating terrorism, it passed strict scrutiny. [Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)]
向恐怖组织提供资金帮助也是言论自由的一部分，而且这是针对内容的限制，需要通过严格标准的审查。但国会法案精确定义了恐怖组织和帮助，且为了反对恐怖活动的紧迫利益量身定做，所以通过了严格审查。[Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)]
However, the regulation of primary and secondary school students is subject to a somewhat more lenient standard of review.
但是对中小学生的监管可以用稍微宽松一些的审查。
Schools can prohibit indecent speech on campus [Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)], and can punish students for promoting illegal drug use [Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)]. They can edit student speech in school newspapers and yearbooks that they deem inappropriate [Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)], and can prohibit student speech that may materially and substantially disrupt school operations [Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)].
学校可以禁止校园内的不雅言论[Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 US 675 (1986)]，可以惩罚鼓吹非法吸毒的学生[Morse v. Frederick, 551 US 393 (2007)]。可以修改校报和年鉴中他们认为不合适的学生言论[Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)]，可以禁止可能严重扰乱学校运作的学生言论[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)]。
Freedom of speech also includes the right not to speak.
言论自由同样包括拒绝表达观点。
Schools cannot force students to salute the flag. [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)]
学校不能强迫学生对旗帜敬礼。[West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)]
If a person dislikes the state motto on their license plate, they can cover it up, as long as the state name and license plate number remain visible. [Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)]
不喜欢车牌上的州格言挡住，露出州名和车牌号即可。[Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)]
Requiring a large, open shopping center to set aside space for people to speak in a reasonable manner presents a conflict between the people's right to express their views and the shopping center's right to refuse to express views. The Court chose the former, provided that the shopping center is not forced to express a specific viewpoint. [Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)]
要求大型开放的商场留出空地供人们以合适的方法演讲是人民有权表达观点和商场拒绝表达观点的冲突，法院选择了前者，前提是并不强迫商场表达特定的观点。[Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)]
对方式的限制Restrictions on the Manner of Speech
The government has largely abandoned restrictions on the content of speech; more often, it imposes restrictions on the manner of speech (content-neutral). The first thing to avoid is overbroad regulations. Even if they do not restrict the content of speech, overly broad restrictions hinder the dissemination and exchange of ideas.
政府已经基本放弃对言论内容的限制了，更多的时候是对言论方式方法的限制（content neutral）。我们首先要避免的就是太过宽泛（overbroad）的规定，即使他们并没有限制言论内容，但过广的限制阻碍的思想的传播和交流。
Overbroad regulations include prohibiting speech that interrupts police enforcement in any manner [Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)], prohibiting any First Amendment-related activities in an airport's central terminal [Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987)], and prohibiting all door-to-door solicitation or requiring a permit for any door-to-door canvassing [Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)]. However, a regulation requiring salespeople to obtain the homeowner's prior consent was upheld [Breard v. City of Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951)].
太过宽泛的规定包括不允许用言论以任何方式打断警察执法 [Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)]，不允许在机场中央航站楼进行任何和宪法第一修正案有关的活动[Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987)]，不允许任何挨家挨户的推销或者任何上门游说必须先取得许可[Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)]。但要求推销员预先取得户主许可的规定得以维持[Breard v. City of Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951)]。
Next, we must avoid vague regulations. People should know exactly what is prohibited; otherwise, they may be deterred from speaking because the regulation is too vague.
然后我们要避免模糊不清（vague）的规定，人们应当确切地知道什么是被禁止的，否则会因为规定太过宽泛而不敢说话。
It should be noted that "overbreadth" is a doctrine specific to the First Amendment, allowing a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit on the grounds that a law might infringe upon the free speech of others. In contrast, "vagueness" is a Due Process principle; it applies not only to laws restricting free speech but also to any law restricting civil rights if it is not defined clearly enough.
需要注意的是，“过度宽泛”（Overbreadth）是第一修正案特有的原则，允许原告以法律可能侵犯他人言论自由为由提起诉讼；而“模糊不清”（Vagueness）属于正当程序（Due Process）原则，不仅适用于限制言论自由的法律，任何限制公民权利的法律如果规定得不够明确，都可以套用模糊不清原则。
Laws prohibiting "common railers and brawlers" and "persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object" are void for vagueness [Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)].
禁止流氓（common railers and brawlers）和游荡（persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object）的法律模糊不清[Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)]。
The terms "violent felony" in the Armed Career Criminal Act and "crime of violence" in immigration law both violate the Fifth Amendment due to vagueness. [Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)]
持枪职业法中的“暴力重罪”（violent felony）和移民法中“暴力犯罪”（crime of violence）都因模糊不清而违反宪法第五修正案。[Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 US ___ (2018)]
If a certain type of speech is expressed through conduct (symbolic speech), we generally apply intermediate scrutiny. However, if the restriction is not substantially on the manner of expression but rather on the content, strict scrutiny still applies.
如果某种言论本身是用行动来表达，我们一般用中等标准来审查，但如果实质上并不是限制方式方法，而是限制内容，依然采用严格审查。
State and congressional acts prohibiting flag burning are essentially content-based restrictions and should be subject to strict scrutiny. The government claimed that prohibiting flag burning served an "important interest," but that interest itself was aimed at restricting people's freedom of speech, which is impermissible [Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)]. Similarly, laws prohibiting the display of symbols that arouse anger, alarm, or resentment (such as burning crosses or Nazi swastikas) violate freedom of speech; the Court did not even consider whether the "arousing anger" provision was overbroad or vague [R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)]. A public school regulation prohibiting students from wearing anti-war armbands is unconstitutional [Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)].
州和国会订立的禁止焚烧国旗的法案实质上是内容审查，应当采用严格标准。政府声称禁止焚烧国旗是为了“重要的利益”，而该利益本身就是为了限制人民的言论自由，这不被允许[Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)]。同理禁止摆放让人不适的符号（燃烧的十字架、纳粹标识）的法律违反言论自由，法院甚至都没有考虑“让人不适”的规定是否过于宽泛或模糊[R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)]。公立学校禁止学生佩戴反战丝带的规定违宪[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)]。
Although burning a cross to express speech is generally permitted, burning a cross with the intent to intimidate others can be criminalized [Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)]. A law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards is valid, as it serves the government's important interest in facilitating the draft [United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)]. Similarly, laws prohibiting the burning of any paper items inside buildings or on public transportation are generally valid; the purpose of these laws is to prevent fires and has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Although schools have broader authority to supervise students and appropriately regulate dress, wearing anti-war armbands did not disrupt school order, and prohibiting the wearing of these armbands solely to restrict students from expressing their ideas is unconstitutional [Tinker, supra].
虽然通常焚烧十字架为了表达言论是允许的，但焚烧巨大的十字架用于恫吓他人的行为是可以被定袭击罪的[Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)]。禁止烧毁征兵卡的法律是有效的，这是为了维护政府顺利征兵的重要利益[United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)]。同理禁止在建筑物内、公共交通工具上焚烧任何纸质物品的法律通常都是有效的，设立这些法律的目的是防止火灾，和言论自由无关。虽然学校有更广泛的权力监管学生并适当规范着装，但佩戴反战徽章并没有扰乱学校秩序，禁止佩戴这个徽章仅仅是为了限制学生表达想法，是违宪的[Tinker, supra]。
Finally, let's remember the general principle for regulating the manner of speech: in a public forum (such as streets, sidewalks, parks, and the Internet), regulations must pass intermediate scrutiny, meaning they must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.
最后我们记规范言论方式方法的大原则：在公开论坛（public forum，比如街道、人行道、公园，互联网），需要通过中等审查，即为政府的重要利益量身定做（narrowly tailored），且要给人们留下其他渠道（alternative channel）发声。
Laws regulating the manner of speech in public forums must be absolutely viewpoint-neutral and cannot regulate the subject matter of the speech. For example, allowing only labor picketing near a school while prohibiting other types of picketing is invalid [Police Department of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)], and prohibiting picketing that criticizes a foreign government near its embassy is also invalid [Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)].
规范公开论坛方式方法的法律必须在观点上绝对中立，不能规范言论的领域。比如在学校周围只允许罢工举牌却禁止其他类别集会的举牌是无效的[Police Department of City of Chicago v. Mosely, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)]，在大使馆附近禁止批评外国政府的举牌也是无效的[Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)]。
Regulations must be narrowly tailored to the government's interest; a one-size-fits-all approach usually fails intermediate scrutiny. Most of the Supreme Court's own precedents strike a balance between maintaining the normal operation of abortion clinics and the free speech of anti-abortion demonstrators. For example, if protests that might obstruct clinic entrances occur only at one abortion clinic once a week, the government should not mandate that only doctors and patients can approach the areas near the entrances and exits of all clinics [McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014)].
规范必须为政府的利益量身定做，一刀切通常无法通过中等标准审查。最高法院自己的判例大多是在维持堕胎诊所的正常运转和反对堕胎的示威人群的言论自由中间取得平衡。比如只发生在一家堕胎医院、一周一次可能有阻碍医院进出口的游行，政府就不应该规定所有医院的出入口附近的区域都只有医生和病人才能靠近[McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014)]。
Public schools are generally not public forums, but if a school allows private use of its facilities (such as classrooms), it becomes a limited public forum (or designated public forum). The school must not engage in viewpoint discrimination against private groups coming to use the facilities. For example, prohibiting a religious group from discussing an otherwise permitted secular topic from a religious perspective is unconstitutional. [Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993)]
公立学校一般来说不是公开论坛，但如果学校允许私人使用学校的设施（比如教室），就变成了有限公开论坛（limited public forum），学校不应该对前来使用设施的私人团体进行观点上的歧视（viewpoint discrimination），比如不允许宗教团体从宗教视角讨论已被允许的世俗话题就是违宪的。[Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993)]
Regulating the manner of speech in a non-public forum only needs to pass rational basis review. In addition, a non-public forum can regulate the subject matter of speech, as long as it is viewpoint-neutral. Note that if there is a restriction on viewpoint, strict scrutiny still applies, and it is almost impossible to pass.
在非公开论坛（non-public forum）规定言论的方式方法只需要通过理性标准的审查。此外非公开论坛还可以规定言论的领域（subject），只要观点中立即可（viewpoint neutral）。注意，如果对观点进行限制，依然用严格标准审查，而且几乎不可能通过。
A city bus that only allows advertising is not a public forum, so the government can stipulate that only commercial and public service advertisements are allowed on buses, and political advertisements are not allowed. This is a subject matter restriction, which is permissible in a nonpublic forum [Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974)]. In contrast, if both commercial and non-commercial content are allowed, the bus becomes a designated public forum [N.Y. Magazine v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 136 F.3d 128, 130 (2d Cir. 1998)].
只允许投放广告的公交车不是公开论坛，所以政府可以规定公交车上只能投放商业和公共服务广告，不允许投放政治广告，这是对领域的限制，在非公开论坛上是允许的[Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974)]。作为对比，如果同时允许商业和非商业内容，公交车就成为了公开论坛[N.Y. Magazine v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 136 F.3d 128, 130 (2d Cir. 1998)]。
Military bases are not public forums, even if they are open for public tours [United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985)]. However, if a military base opens a street to allow public passage, it becomes a public forum [Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (1972)].
部队基地不是公开论坛，即使他们开放参观也是如此[United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985)]。但是，如果部队基地把街道开放允许人们通行，这就是开放论坛了。 [Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (1972)]。
Government buildings and government property are not public forums, so graffiti on government property such as government buildings, streetscapes, streetlights, fire hydrants, and telephone booths can be prohibited [Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984)]. However, the open space in front of a government building is a public forum. If we regulate it on the grounds of preventing obstruction to government employees commuting to and from work, it must pass intermediate scrutiny; for example, prohibiting protests only during commuting hours (narrowly tailored) and leaving open ample alternative channels for communication.
政府大楼、政府财产不是公开论坛，所以可以禁止在政府大楼、街景、路灯、消防栓、电话亭等政府财产上涂鸦[Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984)]。但政府大楼门前的空地是公开论坛，如果我们以妨碍政府雇员上下班为由进行规范，必须通过中等标准审查，比如只在上下班时间禁止游行（量身定做），且要给人留其他的发声渠道。
Airports are not public forums, so solicitation can be prohibited because hurried passengers are at risk of fraud [International Society of Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)]. However, banning all leafletting failed to pass rational basis review [Lee v. International Society of Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 830 (1992)]; the government may only use reasonable methods to regulate the time, place, and manner of distributing leaflets.
机场不是公开论坛，所以可以禁止推销，因为匆忙的客人有被欺诈的风险[International Society of Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)]。但禁止一切传单没有能通过理性审查[Lee v. International Society of Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 830 (1992)]，只可以用合理的方法规范发传单的方式方法。
事前限制Prior Restraint
Courts particularly dislike prior restraints on speech. Even if the speech is not protected by the Constitution, courts prefer to wait until the speech is published and then punish it under relevant laws, rather than prohibiting its publication from the outset. Therefore, laws imposing prior restraints must pass strict scrutiny, and procedurally, they must provide prompt relief to those who are enjoined from speaking. However, the following five categories of prior restraints are generally considered capable of passing strict scrutiny:
法院尤其讨厌事前的言论限制（prior restraint）。即使言论不受宪法保护，法院也宁愿等言论发出来之后被相关法律惩罚，而不是一开始就禁止言论被发表。所以事前限制的法律必须要通过严格标准的审查，并且程序上还要给被禁止发声的人快速的救济。但以下5类事前限制被认为是可以通过严格标准审查的：
For similar reasons, there is no absolute freedom of religion in the military. If the Air Force prohibits the wearing of headgear indoors to maintain military discipline and uniform dress, an officer with religious beliefs cannot be an exception [Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)]. Of course, if for reasons such as flight safety, similar regulations might not be unconstitutional even if applied to civil aircraft. Keep in mind that one cannot violate general provisions of the law on the grounds of religious beliefs; for example, prayers and sacrifices obviously will not be accommodated on an aircraft.
因为类似的原因，在军队也没有绝对的宗教信仰自由。如果空军为了维持军队纪律和着装统一而禁止在室内佩戴头饰，有宗教信仰的军官也不能例外[Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 US 503 (1986)]。当然，如果出于飞行安全等原因，类似的规定即使用在民用航空器上或许也是不违宪的，谨记并不能以宗教信仰为由违反法律的一般规定，比如航空器上显然不会安排祷告和祭祀。
Large-scale seizures and prohibitions on distribution must be preceded by a pre-seizure hearing. [Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989)]
大规模的扣押和禁止传播必须在事前就举办听证会。[Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989)]
If a single copy of suspected obscene material is to be seized, a warrant must be issued by a neutral judge, and prompt post-seizure relief must be provided. If the creator states that there is only one copy, they must be allowed to keep a copy to continue showing it. If these conditions cannot be met, it constitutes a prior restraint and a pre-seizure hearing must be held to decide. [Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973)]
如果要对疑似淫秽内容的单行本进行扣押，必须要由中立的法官签发扣押令（warrant），也要给予迅速的事后救济。如果创作者表示只有一份单行本，他必须被允许保留一份副本用于继续播放。如果做不到这些，就属于事前禁令，必须在事前举行听证会来决定。[Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973)]
Film censorship boards can review films in advance, but they must either approve the screening within a reasonable time or seek an injunction in court to prohibit the film's release. The government has no right to unilaterally decide to ban a film from being shown [Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)]. This case led to the gradual demise of the once-prevalent state film censorship boards.
电影审查委员会可以事前审查电影，但要么在合理时间内批准放映，要么诉诸法院禁止电影上映。政府无权自行决定禁止电影上映[Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)]。这个案例让各州曾经大行其道的电影审查委员会逐渐消亡。
出版自由Freedom of the Press
When answering exam questions, the general principle is that the freedom of speech of the news media is no different from that of the general public. However, it is undeniable that the nature of the news media gives it more of a voice than the general public, and it is even referred to as the 'Fourth Estate' outside of legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
在做题时，大原则是新闻媒体的言论自由和一般民众并没有什么不同。但不可否认的是，新闻媒体的性质导致他比一般的民众有更多话语权，甚至被称为立法、行政和司法权力以外的“第四权力”。
The public and the news media are generally allowed to attend trials, but video recording of trials is usually not allowed, and this is also true for Supreme Court hearings. A decision to close a public trial generally must pass strict scrutiny, such as to protect child victims of sexual abuse.
群众和新闻媒体一般都允许出席庭审，但通常不允许对庭审进行录像，最高法院的庭审也是如此。禁止公开庭审的决定一般要通过严格审查，比如为了保护被性侵害儿童。
Ordinary citizens cannot visit whomever they want in prison, and the same applies to the news media. [Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974)]
普通民众不能想去监狱见谁就见谁，新闻媒体也是如此。[Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974)]
The news media must pay taxes like other businesses. Newspapers and television can be taxed differently [Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991)], but large and small media cannot be taxed differently [Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)], and even less can they be taxed differently based on the content of media reports [Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987)].
新闻媒体和其他企业一样要交税，可以对报纸和电视征不同的税[Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991)]，但不能对大型和小型媒体征不同的税[Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)]，更不能根据媒体报道的内容征不同的税[Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987)]。
Given the special nature of television and radio, courts allow slightly stricter regulation of these two media; in other words, the regulation of these two media is subject to a level of scrutiny slightly lower than strict scrutiny. This is especially true for the regulation of broadcasting, as broadcast channels are limited, and people may be accustomed to leaving the radio on at home, where inappropriate content might invade family privacy without warning. Given this rationale, the regulation of the Internet must pass strict scrutiny.
鉴于电视和广播的特殊性，法院允许对这两种媒介进行稍微严格一些的监管，换言之，对这两种媒介的监管需要通的审查比严格标准稍低一些。尤其是对广播的监管，毕竟广播的频道是有限的，而且大家可能习惯在家开着广播，不合适的内容可能没有预兆地侵犯家庭隐私。鉴于这个理论，对互联网的监管则必须通过严格标准的审查。
Because radios might be left on year-round at home, it is permissible to regulate indecent words at least during times when children might be listening to the radio at home, even if these indecent words do not reach the level of obscenity (speech unprotected by the Constitution). [FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)]
因为广播可能在家常年打开，所以至少对儿童可能在家听广播的时段规范一些不得体的词汇是被允许的，即使这些不得体的词汇没有达到淫秽（不受宪法保护的言论）的程度。[FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 43 8 U. S. 726 (1978)]
Requiring broadcasters to provide equal time for replies by competitors and defamed persons is permissible [Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)], but requiring newspapers to do so is not [Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)].
要求广播公平地播出竞争对手和被诋毁的人的回复是被允许的[Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969)]，但要求报纸这么做则不行[Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)]。
A law requiring cable television operators to set aside channels for local broadcast stations can pass intermediate scrutiny. [Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)]
要求电视运营商必须为本地电视台预留一些频段的法律可以通过中等程度的审查。[Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)]
结社自由Freedom of Association
The Constitution does not explicitly provide for freedom of association, but the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment implicitly protects the right to join together with other persons for expressive or political activity. Laws restricting such freedom are subject to strict scrutiny. However, we must first distinguish between expressive association and general social activities.
宪法没有明文规定结社的自由（freedom of association），但最高法院认为第一修正案隐含了人民为了特定目的聚集在一起的自由（the right to join together with other persons for expressive or political activity），限制此类自由的法律需要通过严格标准的审查。但我们首先需要区分结社和一般的社交活动。
Patrons dancing together at a roller-skating rink or dance hall do not have the intent to associate and express themselves, nor do they form a close common bond. Therefore, a government restriction on the admission of minors does not violate First Amendment rights. [City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989)]
溜冰场和舞厅里一起跳舞的人群并没有结社和表达的意愿，也没有形成共同的紧密联系，所以政府限制未成年人进入并不侵犯第1修正案的权利。[City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989)]
Laws directly restricting association must prove that the group has an unlawful purpose and that the individual joined with the specific intent to further those unlawful aims. [Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967)]
直接限制结社的法律必须要证明团体是为了非法目的，而且当事人就是为了这个非法目的加入的（specific intent to further unlawful aims）。 [Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967)]
A highly tested and easily missed point is that the government not only cannot restrict membership, but it cannot even inquire about it.
一个很容易做错的考点是，不仅不能限制加入，甚至连问都不能问。
A state bar association cannot require applicants to answer whether they have ever been a member of an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government. This question is unrelated to protecting a legitimate government interest, namely whether the applicant is fit to practice law. [Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971)]
州律协不能要求申请人必须回答“是否加入过曾经打算暴力颠覆合众国政府的组织”，这个问题和保护政府合法的利益，即申请人能否成为一名合格的律师无关。[Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 US 1 (1971)]
What role should the government play when an individual wishes to join an association, but the association prohibits the individual from joining? The general principle is that, in order to freely express their views, associations typically have the right to exclude individuals who do not share their views.
当个体希望加入社团，但社团又禁止个体被加入时，政府应当扮演什么样的角色？大原则是，社团为了能够自由表达他们的观点，通常有拒绝和自己观点不相同的人加入的权利。
The government cannot force an anti-homosexual group to accept homosexual members, as this would restrict the group's right to express its views. Homosexuals are free to form another group to express their views. [Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)]
政府不能强制反同性恋的团体接纳同性恋，这限制了反同性恋团体表达他们观点的权利。同性恋大可组建另外一个团体表达他们的观点。[Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)]
However, this right is not absolute. If the purpose of the association is not expressive, and forced inclusion would not "significantly burden" its ability to express its viewpoints, the government may enact laws prohibiting these associations from discriminating against members based on race, national origin, gender, etc.
但这个权利不是绝对的，如果社团的目的并不是表达性（expressive）的，而强制接纳并不会“显著负担（significantly burden）”其表达观点的能力，那政府则可以出台法律禁止这些社团基于种族、出生地、性别等歧视会员。
Even for social clubs and private dining clubs, as long as prohibiting discrimination does not significantly restrict their freedom to express First Amendment rights, the government can impose reasonable anti-discrimination regulations. [New York State Club Association, Inc. v. New York City, 487 U.S. 1 (1988)]
即使是社交俱乐部和私人餐会，只要禁止歧视并不显著限制他们表达第一修正案权利的自由，政府就可以进行合理的反歧视规范。[New York State Club Association, Inc. v. New York City, 487 U.S. 1 (1988)]
武器自由Right to Bear Arms
The Second Amendment guarantees the people's right to keep and bear arms, and it is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not a "second-class right"; it should be subject to the same standard of scrutiny as other rights in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech. The government must demonstrate that the restriction is "consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)]
宪法第2修正案保障人民拥有武器的权利不受侵犯，它也通过第14修正案适用于各州。最高法院认为，第2修正案持有武器的权利并不是什么下等权利（second-class right），它和权利法案的其他权利，比如言论自由，应当适用同样的审查标准。政府必须证明这种限制与合众国持枪规定的历史是一致的（consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation）。[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US ___ (2022)]
A law requiring firearms in the home to be kept unloaded and disassembled is unconstitutional [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)], but prohibiting the possession of weapons in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings is constitutional [Heller, supra]. A federal regulation prohibiting the possession of short-barreled shotguns is also constitutional because such shotguns have no reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia [United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)].
要求在家中必须枪弹分离的法律违宪[District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)]，但是，禁止在学校、政府大楼等敏感地带持有武器是合宪的[Heller, supra]。不能持有短口径霰弹枪的联邦法规也合宪，因为这种霰弹枪对维持民兵系统的纪律和效率没有任何关系[United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)]。
Allowing open carry is a consensus among states regarding the Second Amendment, as carrying openly and plainly is actually not considered dangerous. Conversely, the Supreme Court has long allowed state laws to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons [Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)]. However, a law requiring a special need for self-defense in order to be granted a "may issue" license to carry a concealed weapon in public is unconstitutional, as it contradicts the text of the Second Amendment and the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. After all, over 40 states have "shall issue" licensing regimes where a license must be issued if the applicant meets specific criteria [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., supra]. In this decision, the Chief Justice emphasized that objective requirements for gun ownership, such as background checks, firearms training, mental health checks, and fingerprinting, are still permissible.
允许亮明武器（open carry）是各州对第2修正案的共识，因为公开、大方地携带反而并不危险。反之，最高法院很早就允许州法规范携带隐藏的武器（concealed weapon）[Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)]。但要求在公众场合必须有特殊自卫的理由才可能被发放（may issue）持有隐藏武器的牌照的法律违宪，因为它与第2修正案的文本和合众国持枪规定的历史相悖，毕竟有40多个州是在申请人符合特定条件的时候就必须发放（shall issue）持有隐藏武器的牌照[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., supra]。在这个判决中首席大法官强调，对持枪设立背景调查、持枪训练、精神检查和指纹匹配等客观要求依然是允许的。
征收和补偿Takings and Compensation
The Third Amendment governs when soldiers may be quartered in private homes. The Fourth Amendment governs searches, detentions, and seizures. The Fifth Amendment provides for grand juries, protects against double jeopardy, prohibits compelled self-incrimination, requires due process for the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and requires just compensation for takings. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the right to confront witnesses, the right to obtain favorable evidence, and the right to the assistance of counsel. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases at common law where the value in controversy exceeds $20, but not in equity cases. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. Most of these topics will be covered in the Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and Civil Procedure chapters. In particular, the Criminal Procedure chapter revolves almost entirely around the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.
宪法第3修正案规定了军队何时能驻扎在民房。宪法第4修正案规定了搜查、羁押和扣押。宪法第5修正案规定了大陪审团，规定一罪不二罚，规定不得强迫任何人自证其罪，规定剥夺生命、自由和财产需要经过正当程序（due process），规定征收要给予公正的补偿。宪法第6修正案规定被告有权由公正的陪审团予以迅速和公开的审判，规定被告有权和证人对质，规定有权取得对自己有利的证据且有权由律师进行协助。宪法第7修正案规定普通法超过20美元的民事诉讼有受陪审团审判的权利，但衡平法没有。宪法第8修正案规定不得设定过于严厉的保释条款，不得处过重的罚金或施加过于残酷的刑罚。这些知识点中的大部分我们会在刑诉、证据、民诉篇讲解。尤其是刑诉篇几乎都是围绕宪法4、5、6、8修正案展开。
In the Constitutional Law chapter, we will primarily study the Takings Clause at the end of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Please note that the wording of the clause is not a grant of power but a limitation on government power; the government must use other powers to lawfully take private property for public purposes, and then provide just compensation in accordance with the Fifth Amendment.
在宪法篇我们主要学习第5修正案最后的征收条款（Taking Clause），该条款禁止政府将私有财产征收给公众使用却不给公正的补偿。请注意条款的表述并不是在授予而是在限制政府权力，政府必须用其他的权力依法征收私有财产用于公共目的，然后按照宪法第5修案给予公正的赔偿。
First, we address what constitutes a taking. For land, as long as the government renders a portion of the land unusable or permanently physically invades a portion of the land, even if that portion is very small, it constitutes a taking. However, it is not a taking in emergency situations. Whether a temporary physical invasion constitutes a taking depends on multiple factors.
我们先解决什么是征收（taking），对土地来说，政府只要是让土地的一部分无法使用，或者永久侵入土地的一部分，即使这一部分可能非常地小，也构成征收。但遇到紧急情况不是征收。临时的征用是不是征收要考虑多重因素。
Requiring a landlord to install cable television facilities on their property constitutes a taking [Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)]. Prohibiting the devise and descent of property constitutes a taking [Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987)]. Requiring the owner of a body of water to open it to the public constitutes a taking [Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)].
要求房东在家装电视有线构成征收[Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)]。禁止财产被遗赠和继承构成征收[Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987)]。要求水域的所有人为公众开放水域构成征收[Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)]。
Cutting down trees that may spread disease does not constitute a taking [Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928)], and destroying an oil facility during wartime to prevent it from falling into enemy hands does not constitute a taking [United States v. Caltex, Inc., 344 U.S. 149 (1952)].
砍伐有可能传染疾病的树不构成征收[Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928)]，战时破坏可能会被敌人占领的加油站不构成征收[United States v. Caltex, Inc., 344 U.S. 149 (1952)]。
Government-induced flooding that repeatedly inundates land can constitute a taking, but multiple factors must be considered. [Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012)]
政府泄洪导致土地重复地被淹没可以构成征收，但需要考虑多重因素。[Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012)]
However, sometimes the government merely affects the value of land through regulations. We need to preview an important concept that will be encountered in the Real Property chapter. Typically, local governments zone land into residential, commercial, or industrial areas according to their needs. Of course, this can be more detailed; for example, residential zones can be subdivided into single-family homes, duplexes, townhouses, and apartments (and can even regulate the maximum number of stories). We call this process zoning. Zoning will inevitably affect the value of land, but does it constitute a taking? The general rule is no, unless it permanently deprives a parcel of land of all economically beneficial use, such as prohibiting the construction of any buildings on the land [Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)].
但有时候政府只是通过法规影响土地的价值。我们需要预习一下房地产篇会遇到的重要知识点。通常州以下的政府会根据需要将土地划分为住宅、商业、工业，当然还可以更细一点，比如住宅又可以分为独立别墅、双拼别墅、联排别墅、公寓（还可以规定最高盖多少层），我们把这个过程叫做土地规划（zoning）。土地规划势必会影响土地的价值，那是否会构成征收呢？大原则是不会，除非永久地让一块土地完全丧失一切经济上的使用价值，比如不允许在土地上加盖任何建筑[Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)]。
A parcel of land was once used as a landfill, which was later removed by the owner. The government legislated to rezone the land for residential use, but another government law stipulated that land formerly used as a landfill could not be used for residential purposes. The government's two laws rendered the land completely worthless, constituting a taking.
一块地曾经用来盖垃圾填埋场，后被业主拆除。政府立法将这块地改为住宅，但政府的另外一条法律规定曾经用作垃圾填埋场的地不能用来改住宅。政府的两条法律将这块地规划地一文不值，构成征收。
The zoning of an individual parcel of land, especially when approving or denying construction or renovation plans based on regulations, may constitute a taking. For general regulatory takings, courts will consider the government's benefit, the loss to the plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff had reasonable expectations regarding the new regulations (the Penn Central test). For government exactions, courts will examine whether there is an "essential nexus" between the condition imposed and the legitimate state interest, and whether there is "rough proportionality" between the condition and the impact of the proposed development (the Nollan/Dolan test).
单个土地的规划，尤其是依据法规批准或拒绝修建、改造计划时可能会构成征收。对于一般的管制性征收，法院会考虑政府的收益、对原告的损失以及原告是否对新的规定有合理的预见等（Penn Central测试）。而对于政府附加条件的征收（Exactions），法院会审查政府的条件与征收目的之间是否有明确的联系（essential nexus），以及是否符合比例原则（rough proportionality）（Nollan/Dolan测试）。
A law prohibiting the alteration of Grand Central Terminal in New York was not a taking; the government has an important interest in preserving the historic character of landmark buildings, and moreover, several measures had been taken to mitigate the landowner's losses. [Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 101 (1978)]
禁止纽约中央火车站进行修缮的法律不是征收，政府有重要的利益需要保护知名建筑的历史风貌，何况已经采取了若干措施让地主减少损失。[Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 101 (1978)]
The government agreed to allow the appellants to build a larger house on the condition that they allow the public to pass across the beach between their house and two public beaches (so the public would have a continuous beach). However, none of the government's reasons for imposing this condition—protecting the public's ability to see the beach, helping the public overcome psychological barriers to using the beach, and preventing beach congestion—had an essential nexus with the imposed condition. Therefore, the condition constituted a taking. [Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]
政府同意上诉人修建更大的房子，条件是允许公众通过房子和两个公共海滩之间的海滩（这样公众就有了一个连续的海滩），但政府附加这个条件的理由——保护公众看到海滩的能力，帮助公众克服使用海滩的心理障碍，以及防止海滩拥堵——没有一个和附加的条件之间有实质联系（essential nexus），所以附加的条件构成征收。[Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)]
The city government approved the expansion of a retail store on the condition that the owner dedicate a greenway and a bicycle pathway for public use. The government failed to demonstrate a necessary connection between the dedication of the greenway and bicycle pathway and the offset of the additional traffic generated by the store's expansion, so the condition constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment. [Dolan v. Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)]
市政府同意零售店扩建，但条件是开放一个绿地和自行车道给公众使用。政府没有证明开放绿地和自行车道和抵消零售店带来的额外车流量之间有必然的联系，所以附带的条件构成第五修正案的征收。[Dolan v. Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)]
If a building permit is denied, or if the payment of a fee is required as a condition for approval, the reasons must also meet the standards established in Nollan and Dolan. [Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013)]
如果拒绝批准修建许可，或者要求缴纳一定费用才批准许可，其原因也必须符合Nollan和Dolan中确立的标准。[Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013)]
For non-land private property, appropriate industry regulations do not constitute a taking of a business's property, and even setting reasonable price caps is permissible [Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299 (1989)].
对非土地的私有财产来说，对行业进行适当的规范不属于征收企业的财产，甚至设置合理的售价上限也是如此[Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299 (1989)]。
Next, we consider what constitutes "public use." Although the condemnee can still sue the government, claiming that the taking is not for public use, courts have upheld almost all takings that the government reasonably believes will benefit the public. In other words, a "public purpose" is sufficient, such as taking land to build parks, marinas, or retail stores [Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)]. Courts even allow the government to authorize private parties to conduct the taking, or to transfer the property to private developers after the taking, as long as the ultimate goal is for a public purpose.
接下来我们考虑什么是为公众使用（public use）。虽然被征收人依然可以起诉到政府，声称政府的征收不是为了公共使用，但法院几乎维持了一切政府合理相信对公众有利的征收，换言之，有公共目的即可（public purpose），比如征收土地用于修建公园、码头、零售店等[Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)]。法院甚至允许政府授权私人来主持征收，或者征收之后交给私人开发，只要最终是为了公共目的。
Finally, let us consider what constitutes "just compensation." We consider the value of the property at the time of the taking, and it is measured by the value to the condemnee. Whether the property appreciates or depreciates after the taking is irrelevant. Due process requires that the condemnee have the right to a hearing to determine the value of the taking, but the hearing does not have to be held prior to the taking. If the taken property has no value, no compensation is required.
最后我们来考虑什么是“公正的补偿”（just compensation），我们考虑的是财产在被征收时的价格，而且是针对被征收者的价值。征收后无论是升值还是贬值在所不论。正当程序（due process）要求被征收者有权召开听证会决定征收的价值，但听证会不必是在征收之前。如果被征收的财产没有价值，也就不需要补偿。
If the administrative cost of returning the property to its original owner is higher than the value of the property itself, then taking it does not require the payment of compensation. [Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216 (2003)]
如果将财产返还原主的手续费要高于财产本身的价值，那么征收他们就不必支付补偿。[Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216 (2003)]
One final detail: it is not only the owner of the property at the time the regulation was enacted who has standing to sue; subsequent buyers are also proper plaintiffs. [Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)]
最后一个小细节，并非只有政策出台时被征收财产的所有人才有资格提起诉讼，后续买家也是适格的原告。[Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001)]
联邦和州的关系Federal and State Relations
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution emphasizes that the fact that certain rights of the people are not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean they can be denied or ignored. The Tenth Amendment states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
宪法第9修正案强调没有被宪法列举出来的人民权利并不代表就可以被否定或忽略。宪法第10修正案说的是宪法没有授权给国会，也没有禁止州行使的权力保留给各州和人民。
Congress can make limited adjustments to the states' police power through its Article I powers (taxing, spending, commerce), or impose anti-discrimination restrictions on the police power through the amendments we will study later. However, overall, state governments have considerable autonomy over issues such as health, welfare, education, morals, and safety, and we collectively refer to this power as the police power. When answering questions, it is important to note that the federal government has police power over federal territories such as the capital region, but it does not have police power within the states.
国会可以通过宪法第1条的权力（征税、支出、贸易）对州的警察权进行有限的调整，或者通过后面即将学的修正案对警察权进行反歧视限制，但整体上来说州政府在医疗、福利、教育、道德、治安等问题上有相当大的自治权，我们把这种权力统称为警察权（police power）。做题时需要注意联邦政府在首都地区等联邦属地上有警察权，在各州是没有的。
As we introduced earlier, when taking property, the government must lawfully take private property using other powers, and then provide just compensation in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. Thus, a state government can typically use its police power to legislate the taking of land and then build a hospital. Can the federal government do this? It is generally believed that the federal government can combine the "Necessary and Proper" Clause in Article I with the Fifth Amendment to legislate the taking, and then use the Spending Clause to legislate the building of the hospital. If it is already on the federal government's own land, it can directly invoke the federal police power (the power to manage United States property).
刚才我们介绍过，在征收时，政府必须用其他的权力依法征收私有财产，然后按照宪法第5修案给予公正的赔偿。那么州政府通常就可以用警察权立法后征收土地，然后建一个医院。联邦政府可以这么做吗？通常认为，可以将第1条中的“必要且合适”条款搭配第5修正案立法后征收，再用支出条款立法修建医院。如果本来就在联邦自己的土地上，直接援引联邦的警察权（管理合众国财产的权力）即可。
An option stating that the federal government requires a state to legislate is always wrong; do not be confused by the content of the legislation. The federal government may have exclusive power over a certain matter, or federal law should preempt state law, but the federal government should legislate on its own to achieve its purpose. Similarly, the federal government cannot require a state government to enforce laws in a certain way; the federal government should enforce laws through its own employees.
联邦要求州立法的选项一定是错的，不要被立法的内容迷惑了。或许联邦在某个事项有专属权力，或许联邦法律应当被优先适用，但联邦应当自行立法来达到目的。同理，联邦也不能要求州政府按照某种方式去执行法律，联邦应当通过自己的雇员来执行法律。
Although immigration power is exclusive to the federal government, commanding states to legislate the deportation of illegal immigrants is definitely unconstitutional. The federal government should legislate on its own to deport illegal immigrants, so that any state provisions protecting illegal immigrants will be preempted by federal law. Similarly, it is also unconstitutional for the federal government to command state employees to deport illegal immigrants in accordance with federal law. A state can certainly choose to comply with federal law voluntarily, but if the state does not comply, the federal government can only have its own employees deport illegal immigrants.
虽然移民权力是联邦专属的，但命令各州必须立法驱逐非法移民的一定是违宪的。联邦应当自行立法驱逐非法移民，这样各州保护非法移民的条款都会被联邦法优先。同理，联邦命令州的雇员依照联邦法的要求驱逐非法移民也一定是违宪的，州当然可以自觉遵守联邦法这么做，但州如果并不听从，联邦只能让自己的雇员去驱逐非法移民。
In contrast, the President must comply with the requirements of federal law and ensure that federal laws are faithfully executed (he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed).
作为对比，总统就必须听从联邦法的要求，保证联邦法被准确地执行（he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed）。
The federal government requiring states to either dispose of certain pollutants by a specified date or take title to them and be liable for the damages they cause is commanding state governments to act, which violates the Constitution. [New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)]
联邦要求州如果不在指定日期之前处理某些污染物，就必须接管这些污染物并对他们造成的损害结果负责，这是命令州政府做事，违反宪法。[New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)]
However, the federal government can legislate to prohibit state governments from doing something, especially when federal law treats the government and private parties equally.
但联邦可以立法禁止州政府做某事，尤其是当联邦法对政府和私人一视同仁的时候。
A state government sells driver's license applicants' information to businesses for substantial revenue. When the federal government legislates to prohibit the disclosure of personal privacy, the state government must also comply. [Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000)]
州政府将驾照申请人的信息卖给企业获得可观的收入。当联邦立法禁止泄露个人隐私的时候，州政府也必须遵守。[Reno v. Condon, 528 US 141 (2000)]
When a state acts as an economic entity itself, it must also comply with the requirements of federal law.
州自己作为经济实体的时候，也要遵守联邦法律的要求。
State governments, like other employers, must comply with federal law requirements regarding minimum wage and overtime pay. [Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)]
州政府和其他雇主一样要遵守联邦法关于最低工资和加班工资的要求。[Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)]
If the federal government really wants a state to pass certain legislation, it may achieve its purpose through its spending power. The federal government can require states receiving federal funds to meet specific conditions, as long as:
如果联邦实在是想让州通过某项立法，或许可以通过它支出的权力达到目的，联邦可以要求接受联邦经费的州必须达到特定的条件，只要：
Withholding highway construction funds equal to about 1% of a state's budget if the state does not regulate the drinking age to 21 or older is permissible [South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)], but withholding an amount equal to about 10% of a state's budget constitutes undue coercion [National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, supra].
如果不将饮酒的年龄规范到21岁以上就不发放约等于1%的州预算的高速公路建设基金是可以的[South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)]，但约等于10%的州预算属于不当胁迫[National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, supra]。
Can a state impose some regulations on federal agencies and federal employees within its territory? There are three principles:
州能不能对属地上的联邦机构和联邦雇员进行一些监管呢？三个原则：
A contractor signs a contract with the federal government to build a house and charges $100,000. The state government cannot impose a sales tax on this $100,000; even if the state imposes a uniform sales tax on all service contracts, it must exempt this transaction. If the contractor subsequently spends $50,000 in the market to purchase building materials, a sales tax can be imposed on the building materials. The state government can also impose non-discriminatory corporate taxes on the contractor and income taxes on its employees, just like any other business.
承包商和联邦政府签合同盖房子，收费10万美元，州政府不能对这10万美元征销售税，即使该州对所有服务合同征统一的销售税，也必须对这一笔交易豁免。承包商随后在市场花费5万美元采买建筑材料，则可以对建筑材料征销售税。州政府也可以对承包商征收和其他一视同仁的企业税、其员工的收入税等。
Federal employees can be subject to income tax just like all other workers in the state, but they cannot be singled out for higher taxes. [Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)]
联邦雇员可以和州内其他所有职工一样被征收入税，但不能单独对联邦雇员征更高的税。[Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)]
Federal employees (when performing official duties) do not need to obtain a state driver's license to drive within the state [Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920)], construction on a federal military base does not require a state permit [Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, 352 U.S. 187 (1956)], federal buildings do not have to comply with state-established environmental requirements [Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167 (1976)], and a state government's ban on door-to-door solicitation cannot prevent federal officials from doing so.
联邦雇员（行使公职时）在州内开车不需要获得州驾照[Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920)]，在联邦军事基地上施工不需要州的许可[Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, 352 U.S. 187 (1956)]，联邦建筑物不必符合州订立的环保要求[Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167 (1976)]，州政府禁止门对门推销也不能阻止联邦的官员这么做。
Of course, a state also cannot obstruct law enforcement by federal employees.
州当然也不能对联邦雇员的执法进行阻拦。
Suppose the federal government has enough personnel to extensively deport illegal immigrants on state land; the state must not obstruct them. As introduced earlier, even if the state legislates to protect illegal immigrants, it would be unconstitutional or preempted by federal law.
假设联邦有了足够的人手来州的土地上大肆驱赶非法移民，州不得阻拦。如前面介绍的那样，即使州立法保护非法移民也是违宪或者被联邦法优先的。
Even if the FBI arrests a governor, a state court may not issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering the governor's release [Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. 397 (1871)]. Conversely, it is common in Criminal Procedure for a federal court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering a state to release someone.
即使FBI把州长抓走了，州法院也不得签发人身保护令（writ of habeas corpus）要求放人[Tarble’s Case, 80 U.S. 397 (1871)]。反过来，联邦法院签发人身保护令要求州放人在刑诉中则很常见。
第11-27修正案和其他问题Amendments 11-27 and Other Issues
公民与州之间的诉讼Suits Between Citizens and States
The Eleventh Amendment overlaps with Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law, and we study it in the Constitutional Law section.
宪法第11修正案是民诉和宪法重合的内容，我们在宪法篇学习。
The original text of the amendment states that the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. However, its practical application differs somewhat from the original text, so it is best to forget the exact wording and focus on the doctrine. First, the Eleventh Amendment applies not only to out-of-state citizens and foreigners, but also prohibits in-state citizens from suing their own state government in federal court [Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)].
该修正案原文指的是联邦的司法权不得被扩大解释为对另外一州的公民或者外国人根据普通法或衡平法对一个州提起的诉讼有管辖权。但实务上运用和宪法原文差异有点大，所以最好我们还是忘了原文，只学理论，首先第11修正案不仅适用于外州公民和外国人，本州公民也不能在联邦法院起诉州政府[Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)]。
Simply put, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits any citizen or business from suing a state government in federal court without the state's consent, including:
简单地说，第11修正案禁止任何公民或者企业在联邦法院未经该州同意（consent）起诉州政府，包括：
Lawsuits not barred by the Eleventh Amendment include:
没有被第11修正案禁止的诉讼包括：
However, equitable suits based on state law remain impermissible, even if they satisfy the diversity jurisdiction requirements introduced in the Civil Procedure section (which requires the plaintiff and defendant to be from different states and the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000 for state-law claims).
但基于州法的衡平法诉讼依然是不可行的，即使满足民诉篇介绍的diversity（要求基于州法案由的原被告双方来自不同的州，且争议案值超过75000美金）。
Furthermore, without the state government's consent, citizens cannot sue a state government in state courts or before federal administrative agencies. More generally, one cannot sue the United States in federal court, or sue one state in the courts of another state, unless the defendant government consents. This is known as Sovereign Immunity.
此外如果没有被州政府同意，公民也不能在州法院或者联邦的各种委员会起诉州政府。更一般地，也不能在联邦法院起诉合众国，或者在一个州的法院起诉另一个州，除非得到被告政府的同意。这叫做主权豁免（Sovereign Immunity）。
The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not mean there is no remedy after being harmed by the government. Because the government is elected and must consider public sentiment—and legislators themselves do not want to be left without a remedy if harmed by the government—legislatures at all levels have passed statutes waiving sovereign immunity in most situations. This point is not frequently tested in multiple-choice questions, but it can be mentioned in passing in essays.
主权豁免原则不意味被政府侵权后毫无救济，因为政府是民选的，要照顾民众感受，包括议员自己也不希望被政府侵权后没有救济，所以各级议会都出台法案放弃（waiver）了大多数主权豁免。选择题不经常遇到这个考点，但论文可以顺带介绍。
政府行为State Action
Let's first review the amendments we have studied so far: they only restrict the actions of the government (or government properties, such as public schools and public hospitals), not private actions.
我们先复习一下前面学过的修正案，他们都只限制政府（或者政府产业，比如公立学校、公立医院）的行为，而不是私人的行为。
A social media platform banning President Trump from speaking restricts his speech, but because the social media platform is not the government, the act of banning him does not even require a constitutional analysis.
社交平台禁止特朗普总统发言，这侵犯了总统的言论自由，但社交平台不是政府，所以禁止总统发言的行为是甚至都不用进行违宪分析。
If Trump were to persuade the state where the social media platform is headquartered to pass a law forcing the restoration of his right to speak, whether this law is unconstitutional would be an issue to consider on the exam, because the law attempts to compel the social media platform to express a viewpoint. According to recent Supreme Court precedent, social media platforms exercise editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, which differs from the precedent holding that a government requirement for an open shopping mall to allow free expression is not unconstitutional [Pruneyard Shopping Center, supra]. Therefore, forcing a social media platform to publish speech it disagrees with is highly likely unconstitutional.
假如特朗普说服社交平台总部所在在州立法强制恢复他的发言权利，那么这条法律是否违宪则是做题时需要考虑的问题，因为这条法律试图强迫社交平台表达观点。根据最高法院近期的判例，社交平台行使受第一修正案保护的编辑裁量权，这与政府要求开放的商场必须自由让人们表达意见并不违宪的先例[Pruneyard Shopping Center, supra]不同。因此，强迫社交平台发布其不同意的言论极有可能是违宪的。
Whether a public official's deletion of comments on social media is unconstitutional depends on whether the action constitutes state action. A public official's conduct constitutes state action only if the official possessed actual authority to speak on the state's behalf and purported to exercise that authority when speaking on social media. [Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 387 (2024)]
公职人员在社交媒体上删除评论的行为是否违宪，取决于其行为是否构成政府行为。只有当公职人员拥有代表政府发言的实际职权，并在社交媒体上发言时声称行使了该职权时，其行为才构成政府行为。[Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 387 (2024)]
However, sometimes private actions can be deemed state action in the following two situations:
但有时候私人的行为也会被看作政府行为，有下面两种情况：
A private party exercising government functions under government delegation is clearly state action, such as administering government elections. When joining a bar association is the only way to become a lawyer, the bar association represents the government.
私人在政府的委托下行使政府职能显然是政府行为，比如管理政府选举。加入律师协会是成为律师唯一途径的时候，律协就代表政府。
Even if state prisons or state parole services are entirely delegated to private entities, the actions of those entities are state action because these are traditional public functions. However, providing electricity or tap water is not a traditional public function; thus, even if the government operated them for a long time and later transferred them to a private entity, the private entity's shutting off water or electricity due to non-payment is not governed by the Constitution [Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)]. The government may heavily regulate power plants or water treatment facilities through legislation, or provide substantial funding to private schools, but this does not necessarily mean the actions of these institutions become state action. Although there is no precise formula to calculate how much government involvement constitutes state action, if the government leases premises to a private business and maintains the premises with public funds, it typically constitutes significant involvement in the private action [Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)].
即使州监狱、州假释服务完全委托给私人机构，该机构的行为也是政府行为，因为这些是传统的政府职能。但供电、自来水就不是传统的政府职能，所以即使政府运营了相当长一段时间，后来又转交给私人机构，私人机构因为居民不交费而停水停电，就不受宪法调整[Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)]。政府可能对发电厂、自来水厂立法进行很严的监管，或者对私立学校进行较大的资助，但并不必然代表这些机构的行为就会变成政府行动。虽然不可能有一个公式来计算政府到底参与了多少才属于违宪，但如果政府将场地租给私人运营商业，并用公款维护这个场地，通常属于显著参与了私人的行为[Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)]。
Judicial action is also state action, and court judgments are naturally subject to constitutional review. Even during jury selection, although private parties can exercise peremptory challenges to exclude certain jurors without stating a reason, because the court enforces the exclusion decision, it is still subject to constitutional scrutiny.
法院行为也是政府行为，法院的判决当然要受到宪法审查。甚至在遴选陪审团的时候虽然私人可以无理由排除若干陪审员，但是因为法院为排除的决定背书，所以依然要进行宪法审查。
Suppose after leaving office, Trump sues a social media platform in court to demand the restoration of his account. The social media platform argues that, as a private enterprise, it has a First Amendment right not to publish speech it dislikes. Could Trump further argue that since he is no longer the government, he cannot infringe upon the defendant's First Amendment rights, making it solely a contract law issue rather than a constitutional one? No, because a court compelling the social media platform to unblock the account is also state action, and this action implicates the First Amendment. 'Judicial action is state action' is a classic trap in exam questions.
假如特朗普卸任后，将社交平台起诉到法院要求恢复他的账号。社交平台抗辩说，作为一个私人企业，有第一修正案的权利不发表自己不喜欢的言论。特朗普可否进一步辩称，自己已经不是政府，所以不会侵犯被告的第一修正案权利，只有合同法问题，而没有宪法问题？不可以，法院强制社交平台解封账号同样是政府行为，而且该行为和第一修正案相关。“法院行为也是政府行为”是做题时一个经典的陷阱。
A private party owning an entire company town and exercising functions similar to a government entity constitutes state action [Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)]. However, merely owning a large shopping mall is not enough [Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)], even if the mall might include a hotel for visitor accommodation.
私人拥有一整个小镇并具有类似政府机构的职能，这属于政府行为[Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)]。但仅仅是拥有一个很大的商场是不够的[Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)]，即使这个商场可能有用于游客住宿的酒店。
An athletic association voluntarily joined by many public and private schools within a state does not represent state action [National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988)]. However, it is different if all athletic events held by public schools in the state are organized by this association, especially if the association's administrators are eligible for state retirement benefits [Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001)].
州内很多公立和私立学校都自愿加入的体育协会并不代表政府行动[National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988)]，但如果州内公立学校举办的所有运动会都是这个协会举办的就不一样了，尤其是协会的管理人员还可以享受州的退休福利[Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001)]。
Mere government inaction when someone is harmed by a private party is not state action, and at least at the federal constitutional level, it is not protected [DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)]. Of course, the government cannot explicitly authorize unconstitutional private actions or prohibit (lower) governments from providing constitutional protections [Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)].
在受到私人伤害的时候政府仅仅不作为不是政府行为，至少联邦宪法层面是不保护的 [DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)] 。当然，政府不能明文允许私人的违宪行为或者禁止（下级）政府的宪法保护[Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)]。
禁止奴役Prohibition of Slavery
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed before the end of the Civil War and is Abraham Lincoln's political legacy. While other constitutional amendments are designed to limit government power, this amendment is the only provision in the Constitution that prohibits private conduct. The clause itself is easy to understand: it prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
宪法第13修正案在南北战争结束之前通过，是林肯的政治遗产。如果宪法其他修正案都旨在限制政府权力的话，该修正案是宪法唯一禁止私人行为的条文，条款本身很好理解，就是禁止奴隶制和强迫劳役。
Mandatory military draft, jury duty, and punishment for convicted criminals (such as community service) do not constitute involuntary servitude. Contractual obligations and specific professional associations also do not fall under involuntary servitude, such as requiring doctors and lawyers to complete a certain amount of pro bono work to practice. However, precisely because of the Thirteenth Amendment, courts are generally reluctant to specifically enforce such obligations, preferring other remedies such as monetary damages or upholding a professional association's decision to deny a license.
强制兵役、陪审团义务、被定罪者的惩罚（比如社区服务）不属于强制劳役。合同义务和特定行业的协会也不属于强制劳役，比如要求医生和律师必须完成一定的义务工作（pro bono）才能执业。但正是因为宪法第13修正案，法院通常也不愿意强制执行这类义务，而是更愿意其他救济，比如金钱赔偿，或者维持行业协会不予发放执照的决定。
第14修正案The Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed after the Civil War and is known as the "Second Founding," an honor not even bestowed upon the Bill of Rights, which made history by passing ten amendments at once. Section 1 of this amendment accounts for nearly half of the tested concepts in Constitutional Law. Let us first look at the original text.
宪法第14修正案是南北战争之后通过的，它被称为“二次制宪”，连一次性通过10条修正案载入史册的权利法案都没有获此殊荣。该条第1款占了宪法将近一半的考点，我们先看原文。
出生即公民Birthright Citizenship
Persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States do not include diplomats, Native Americans, and alien enemies, but do include aliens, and even undocumented immigrants [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)]. Therefore, as long as their children are born in the United States, they become U.S. citizens and citizens of the state where they are born. Another method is naturalization, which is applying for and being granted U.S. citizenship. Generally, one must be a U.S. permanent resident (i.e., hold a green card) for five years before applying for naturalization.
受合众国管辖的人（subject to the jurisdiction）不包括外交人员、印第安人和外敌，但包括外国人（alien），甚至包括非法（undocumented）移民[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)]。所以他们的子女只要在美国出生就成为了美国公民和他出生的州的公民。另外一种方式归化（naturalization），即申请加入美国国籍并获得批准。通常来说，需要成为美国永久居民（permanent resident），也就是获得美国绿卡5年后才可以申请加入美国国籍。
Joe Biden was born in Pennsylvania, so he was a U.S. citizen and a citizen of Pennsylvania. He later moved to Delaware and became a citizen of Delaware. He served as a Senator representing Delaware for 36 years. In 2020, he ran for president with Delaware as his home state and won the election, becoming the first U.S. president from that state, although his birth state of Pennsylvania was one of the key swing states that helped him win the election.
拜登在宾夕法尼亚出生，所以是美国公民和宾夕法尼亚州公民，后来他迁徙到了特拉华，又成为了特拉华州的公民。他代表特拉华担任了36年的参议员。2020年，他以特拉华为居住州竞选总统并赢得大选，成为来自该州的第一位美国总统，不过他的出生州宾夕法尼亚才是帮助他赢得大选的关键州之一。
The constitutional provision of "birthright citizenship" was originally intended to overturn several absurd Supreme Court precedents from the slavery era, allowing the children of Black people to become full-fledged U.S. citizens. However, it is now being applied in another absurd way.
宪法规定“出生就有公民权”本来是为了推翻奴隶制时代几个荒诞的最高法院判例，让黑人的子女也可以成为堂堂正正的美国公民，但现在却被以另外一种荒诞的方式运用着。
Donald Trump once threatened that he could end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals with just an executive order, but the legislative and judicial branches generally do not recognize the president as having this power. Following Wong and Plyler, it seems this could only be achieved through a constitutional amendment. Trump's ultimate choice was to prohibit foreign citizens from applying for visas for the purpose of giving birth in the U.S. Given the considerable power granted to the president under immigration law, Trump accomplished this solely through an executive order. This policy remains in effect today.
特朗普曾扬言他只需要一道行政命令就让外国人在美国出生的小孩无法自动成为美国公民，但立法界和司法界普遍不认同总统有这个权力。如果沿用Wong和Plyler，似乎只有通过修改宪法才能做到。特朗普最后的选择是禁止外国公民以赴美生子为由申请签证，在移民法赋予总统相当大权利的情况下，特朗普仅凭行政命令就做到了这点。该政策维持至今。
特权和豁免Privileges and Immunities
Privileges and Immunities are rarely tested, but when they are, the tested concepts are very detailed because the Constitution has two Privileges and Immunities Clauses. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects the commercial activities upon which out-of-state residents rely for their livelihood or fundamental rights of residents. If a state law discriminates against out-of-state residents regarding fundamental rights or important economic activities, the state government must prove a "substantial justification," meaning that out-of-state residents are the peculiar source of the specific problem, and there are no less restrictive alternative means.
特权和豁免考的很少，但是如果考到的话考点很细，因为宪法有两个特权和豁免条款。宪法第4条的特权与豁免条款保护的是外州居民赖以生存的商业行为或者基本的居民权利。如果州法在基本权利或重要经济活动上歧视外州居民，州政府必须证明存在“实质性理由”（substantial justification），即外州居民是造成特定问题的特殊根源，且没有限制更小的替代方案。
A state cannot give in-state debtors priority when a business goes bankrupt [Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 258 (1898); Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 184 (1878)]. It cannot restrict out-of-state residents from practicing law within the state [Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988)]. Furthermore, it cannot restrict out-of-state residents from accessing its courts [Can. N. Ry. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 560 (1920)]. It cannot impose an income tax solely on out-of-state residents [Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1975)]. It cannot require private employers to give hiring preference to local residents unless it passes strict scrutiny (which overlaps with the Dormant Commerce Clause) [Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)]. Even for a city government construction contract, a requirement that at least 40% of the workers hired be city residents, while not violating the Dormant Commerce Clause, may violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause [United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984)].
不能让企业破产时州内的债务人优先受偿[Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 258 (1898); Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 184 (1878)]。不能限制外州居民在本州担任执业律师[Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988)]。更不能限制外州居民来本州打官司[Can. N. Ry. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 560 (1920)]。不能只对外州居民征收入税[Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1975)]。不能让私人企业优先招聘本地居民，除非通过严格审查（和休眠的贸易条款重合）[Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)]。即使是市政府的施工合同，要求招聘工人时本市居民至少占40%的条款虽然不违反（休眠的）贸易条款，但可能会违反特权与豁免[United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984)]。
The Constitution no longer prohibits states from restricting women's access to abortion, making cross-state travel for abortions a necessity for many women. The Privileges and Immunities Clause ensures that out-of-state women seeking medical care must enjoy the same policies as local residents; therefore, a state that permits abortion cannot prohibit the procedure simply because the pregnant woman is from out of state [Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)].
宪法已经不再禁止各州限制女性堕胎，这让女性跨州堕胎成为刚需。特权与豁免条款保证外州女性来就医时，必须享受和本地居民一样的政策，所以允许堕胎的州并不能仅仅因为孕妇来自外州就禁止手术[Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)]。
Requiring individuals requesting public records to be state residents does not violate the Constitution, as the right to access public information is not a fundamental right, and the law itself was not enacted to protect in-state residents in a protectionist manner. [McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013)]
要求申请信息公开的人必须是本州居民则不违反宪法，信息公开权不是基本权利，法律本身也不是为了保护州内居民订立的。[McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013)]
Charging out-of-state residents a slightly higher fee for a hunting license is permissible because hunting is merely for recreational purposes [Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Commission, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)]. However, if the fee for a commercial fishing license for out-of-state residents is significantly higher than that for in-state citizens, affecting the fishermen's livelihood, it violates Article IV of the Constitution [Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948)]. The distinction between these two cases is not the difference between hunting and fishing, but rather the difference between recreation and livelihood. To this day, many states mandate that the fee for out-of-state residents applying for a recreational fishing license be significantly higher than that for in-state residents.
对外州居民收少量额外的打猎证的费用是可以的，因为打猎只是休闲娱乐的目的[Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Commission, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)]，但如果外州居民申请商业钓鱼证的费用显著高于本州公民，影响了渔民的生计，则违反宪法第4条[Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948)]。这两个案例的区别不是打猎和钓鱼的区别，而是休闲和生计的区别。时至今日，许多州都规定外州居民前来申请休闲钓鱼证的费用要显著高于州内居民。
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that state governments may not infringe upon the federal rights of citizens, such as the right to vote for federal officials, petition Congress, enter federal lands, and engage in interstate travel. The rights under the First Amendment are not protected under this clause (refer to the Due Process section later). The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has only been used a few times, and the Justices have many different views on this clause.
宪法第14修正案的特权和豁免说的是州政府不得侵犯公民的联邦权利，比如选举联邦官员、向国会请愿、进入联邦土地和跨州旅行（interstate travel）。宪法第1修正案的权利并不在这个条款的保护范围之列（参考后文的正当程序），第14修正案的特权和豁免仅仅被用过几次，大法官们关于这条有很多不同的观点。
Neither of the two Privileges and Immunities Clauses protects corporations.
两处特权与豁免条款均不保护企业。
旅行权Right to Travel
We need to discuss the right to interstate travel in more detail. The Supreme Court has held that the right to interstate travel encompasses three components. [Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)]
我们需要更详细地讲述一下跨州旅行权（right to interstate travel）。最高法院认为跨州旅行权包括三个方面。[Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)]
The first is the right to freely enter and leave different states. This right is so fundamental that its textual source has not been extensively debated. Of course, some provisions that impose even slight restrictions on interstate travel have been struck down as clear violations of the Commerce Clause.
首先是在不同的州来去自由，这个权利是如此的基本，以至于都没有好好讨论下法源。当然，一些对跨州旅行稍加限制的条款显然违反了贸易条款被宣布无效。
Taxing out-of-state (or foreign) residents entering or leaving a state violates the (Dormant) Commerce Clause. [Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 283 (1849), Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)]
对进入和离开州的外州（外国）居民收税违反（休眠的）贸易条款。[Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 283 (1849), Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)]
Criminal penalties for assisting indigent out-of-state residents in entering the state violate the (Dormant) Commerce Clause. [Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)]
惩罚帮助外州贫困的居民进入本州的刑罚违反了（休眠的）贸易条款。[Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)]
However, this does not mean Congress has the power to burden the free movement of people between states, as doing so might violate the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Fifth Amendment substantive due process. Even during the height of the pandemic, neither Congress nor the states imposed restrictions on the interstate movement of people.
但这并不代表国会就有权给人口在州之间自由流动施加负担，因为可能违反了4条特权与豁免（privileges and immunities）和第5修正案实质性正当程序（substantive due process）。即使是在疫情最严重的时期，国会和各州都没有对人口的跨州流动进行限制。
The second component is that out-of-state citizens temporarily visiting should be treated as welcome visitors rather than "unfriendly aliens." Out-of-state visitors must be able to enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the state's own citizens; the textual source for this is Article IV of the Constitution, which we detailed in the previous section.
第二个方面就是临时来旅行的外州公民应当是友好的座上宾，而非“不速之客”。外州访客要能够得到和本州公民相同的特权和豁免，法源是宪法第4条，我们在上一节详述过。
The final component is an important (or perhaps the only) testable point regarding the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause: citizens have the right to choose to reside in any state in the Union [Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)] and to be treated equally in their newly arrived state [Saenz, supra]. Therefore, if you see a scenario where a resident moving to another state must wait a long time to enjoy a certain benefit, this violates the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause. Of course, some views hold that it violates Equal Protection, which will be detailed later. Regardless, when answering such questions, selecting a violation of the right to travel is correct; you should form muscle memory for this.
最后一个方面则是宪法第14修正案特权和豁免的重要考点（或者说唯一考点），即公民有权自主选择在合众国的任何一个州居住[Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]，并在新抵达的州被平等对待[Saenz, supra]，所以如果看到一个州的居民搬去另外一个州要较长的时间才能享受到某个福利，这违反了第14修正案的特权和豁免，当然也有观点认为违反了后面会详述的平等保护，无论如何，做这样的题选违反了旅行权是没错的，要形成肌肉记忆。
The United States does not have a unified national identity card. In most cases, a driver's license is used as ID; those who do not drive can apply for a photo ID card. Each state's ID has a different design and is managed by the state government. In practice, a citizen moving to any new state can obtain a new state ID by presenting proof of address (such as a lease agreement, property deed, purchase contract, proof of residence, or even utility or credit card bills), which is somewhat analogous to the household registration (hukou) system in China.
美国没有统一的身份证。绝大多数情况用驾照作为ID，不会开车的可以申请照片卡作为ID。每个州的ID都是不同的款式，由州政府管理。实务上，公民搬到任何新州可以持有住址证明（比如租房合同、房产证、购房合同、借住证明，甚至水电气信用卡账单）换取新州的ID，这就相当于国内的户口了。
A law requiring out-of-state residents to wait one year after arriving in the state before they can enjoy the state's homestead exemption (preventing their primary residence from being auctioned in bankruptcy) violates the right to travel. A law requiring out-of-state residents to wait one year before they can receive medical insurance violates the right to travel, even though the state government has no inherent obligation to provide medical insurance to its residents.
要求外州居民来本州后必须等待一年才能享受本州居民破产后唯一住宅不得被拍卖的法律违反旅行权。要求外州居民来本州后1年才可以享受医疗保险的法律违反旅行权，虽然州政府本来并没有义务给居民提供医疗保险。
If a law merely requires that an applicant for a certain benefit be a bona fide resident of the state, or if the benefit is revoked when the applicant ceases to be a resident, it is generally constitutional, especially when the government is hiring its own employees. [McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Svc. Comm’n, 424 U.S. 645 (1976)]
如果仅仅是要求某项福利的申请人必须是本州真实居民，或者当申请人不是本州居民的时候福利会被取消，基本是合宪的，尤其是政府自己招聘雇员的时候。[McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Svc. Comm’n, 424 U.S. 645 (1976)]
The right to interstate travel is a fundamental right. This is the first fundamental right we are studying. In contrast, the right to international travel is not a fundamental right; Congress may restrict citizens from traveling to specific countries for security reasons, as long as the decision is not arbitrary or discriminatory [Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965)].
跨州旅行权是一项基本权利。这是我们学的第一个基本权利。作为对比，国际旅行权就不是一项基本权利，国会可以出于安全原因限制国民前往特定国家，只要该决定不是武断或歧视性的[Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965)]。
However, the right to international travel is protected by due process. A person's passport cannot be revoked solely based on their speech or association. [Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)]
但是，国际旅行权受到正当程序的保护。不能纯基于言论或结社原因吊销一个人的护照。[Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)]
正当程序Due Process
Procedural due process means that before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, an evidentiary hearing or at least an opportunity to respond must be provided. Its legal sources are the Fifth Amendment (for the federal government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (for state governments). Depriving a person of life and liberty through criminal penalties is protected by the strictest due process, which we will discuss separately in the Criminal Procedure section.
正当程序（procedural due process）即剥夺他人生命、自由和财产前，应当召开听证会（evidentiary hearing）或者至少给予陈述申辩的机会（opportunity to respond），其法源是宪法第5修正案（联邦政府）和第14修正案（州政府）。用刑罚来剥夺人的生命和自由应当受到最严格的正当程序的保护，我们会在刑诉篇单独讲解。
The essence of the due process principle is that before making any decision exercising power that adversely affects others, the party's opinions should be heard. ... Even if there are no explicit procedural provisions in the law, administrative agencies cannot consider themselves free from procedural restrictions, or even ignore the most basic principles of due process. It should be said that administrative agencies have no discretion regarding the application of the due process principle. Only when the law does not set specific procedural provisions for the due process principle can administrative agencies make choices regarding the specific manner of fulfilling due process. [(2017) Jing 01 Xing Zhong No. 277]
正当程序原则的要义在于，作出任何使他人遭受不利影响的行使权力的决定前，应当听取当事人的意见。……即使法律中没有明确的程序规定，行政机关也不能认为自己不受程序限制，甚至连最基本的正当程序原则都可以不遵守。应该说， 对于正当程序原则的适用，行政机关没有自由裁量权。只是在法律未对正当程序原则设定具体的程序性规定时，行政机关可以就履行正当程序的具体方式作出选择。【（2017）京01行终277号】
Legislative acts and the issuance of administrative orders based on law do not require due process, such as increasing the passing rate of the written driving test from 60% to 80%. Negligent administrative acts also do not require due process; we use tort law or other remedies to compensate for the loss.
立法行为、根据法律推出行政命令不需要正当程序，比如将驾照科目一的通过率从60%提高到80%。过失行政行为也不需要正当程序，我们用侵权法或者其他救济方法来弥补损失。
Due process resolves disputed factual issues, not legal issues. If "cheating on an exam will result in expulsion" is written in the school rules, a student has the right to request a hearing only if they believe they did not cheat. However, if the student admits to cheating and merely disagrees with the rule itself, a hearing is not required; they can only sue in court claiming the rule itself is unconstitutional or illegal. Note that only public schools are bound by the Constitution; private schools are governed by contract law.
正当程序解决的是有争议的事实问题，而不是法律问题。“考试作弊会被开除学籍”如果写在校规中，学生如果认为自己没有作弊才有权要求召开听证会。但如果学生承认自己作弊，仅仅对这条校规不认可，就不需要召开听证会，只能去法院起诉这条校规本身违宪或者违法。请注意，公校才受宪法约束，私校用合同法调整。
Deprivation of liberty generally falls within the realm of criminal penalties, but there are occasionally non-criminal deprivations of liberty, such as the involuntary commitment of mentally ill individuals. The Constitution requires that a hearing be held before an adult is involuntarily committed to a mental institution. For minors, mere parental consent is not enough; there must at least be an independent evaluation by a neutral physician [Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)]. Government damage to a private individual's reputation usually does not constitute a deprivation of liberty unless it causes substantial harm to the individual's employment opportunities.
剥夺自由（liberty）一般是刑罚的范畴，但刑罚以外也偶尔会有剥夺自由的情形，比如精神病人的强制医疗。宪法要求，将一个精神病人强制收容医疗之前必须举行听证会。对未成年人来说，仅仅父母同意是不够的，至少还必须经过中立医生的独立评估[Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)]。政府对私人名誉的损害通常不属于剥夺自由，除非对私人的就业机会构成实质性损害。
The early Supreme Court distinguished between "rights" and "privileges," holding that denying a privilege did not require due process. If you see this distinction, it is definitely a wrong answer choice, because the Supreme Court no longer makes this distinction. As long as there is a deprivation of a right, benefit, or facility that the administrative counterpart can legitimately enjoy (a legitimate interest), some level of due process must be provided. However, due process does not create interests; it only protects them.
早期的最高法院会区分权利（rights）和优待（privileges），并认为拒绝给予优待不需要正当程序。看到这种一定是错误选项，因为最高法院已经不再作这种区分。只要是剥夺行政相对人能够合法享受的权利、福利、设施（legitimate interest），都应当给与一定程度的正当程序。但正当程序并不创造利益，只是保护利益。
If state law does not allow out-of-state attorneys to practice, due process cannot create this interest. However, if an out-of-state attorney applies to practice through the methods prescribed by state law and is denied, due process can protect this interest.
如果州法律不允许外州律师来执业，正当程序并不能创造这个利益。但如果外州律师通过州法规定的方式申请执业被拒绝，正当程序就可以保护这个利益。
A hearing requires a neutral decision-maker to hear the arguments of the administrative agency and the affected party.
听证会需要由中立的裁判者听取行政机关和行政相对人的意见。
If the decision-maker is not sufficiently neutral, such as being paid based on the number of arrest warrants issued, it does not meet the requirements of due process. [Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977)]
如果裁判不够中立，比如按签发逮捕令的份数来收费，就不合正当程序的要求。[Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977)]
The testing focus is mainly on what level of due process should be applied to what kind of administrative action. Whether a pre-deprivation hearing is required depends on three factors:
考点主要在对于什么样的行政行为应当适用什么样程度的正当程序。是否需要事前的听证会，需要考虑三个因素：
[Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)]
[Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)]
These three factors are frequently tested in essays, so they must be memorized clearly. If the government wants to revoke a doctor's license on the grounds of improperly prescribing medication, what is considered is the importance of the license to the doctor, not the importance of due process to the doctor. What is considered is the government's cost and efficiency, not the government's determination to crack down on prescription drugs.
这三个因素论文还经常考到，所以必须记清楚。如果政府要以医生乱开处方药为由吊销医生执照，考虑的有执照对医生的重要性，而不是正当程序对医生的重要性。考虑的是政府的花费和效率，而不是政府对打击处方药的决心。
After weighing these three factors, the government sometimes must provide a full pre-deprivation hearing; sometimes it can provide a brief opportunity to respond beforehand, followed by a full post-deprivation hearing; and sometimes it can act first and hold a hearing later.
在考量这三个因素之后，政府有时候必须给事前的完整听证会；有时候可以事前给一个简单的解释机会，事后再召开完整的听证会；有时候可以直接先斩后奏。
The government's termination of welfare benefits requires a hearing before the actual termination. The party must have an opportunity to present their case; the government does not need to provide an attorney, but must allow an attorney to be present. The decision-maker must be sufficiently neutral. [Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)]
政府中断发放社保（welfare benefits）必须给予在实际中断之前召开听证会。当事人必须有陈述申辩的机会，政府不用提供律师，但必须允许律师在场。裁判者必须足够中立。[Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)]
Terminating disability benefits, however, only requires a post-termination hearing, because the need for these benefits is considered lower than the need for welfare benefits. Disabled individuals not only have the possibility of receiving help from private charities, but when their income falls below average, the government also has other forms of assistance. [Mathews, supra]
中断残疾人补贴则可以开事后的听证会，因为他们对补贴的需求低于人们对社保的需求。残疾人不仅有获得私人慈善机构帮助的可能性，当他们的收入低于平均水平时，政府还有其他形式的援助。[Mathews, supra]
Revoking a person's passport for national security reasons only requires a post-revocation hearing [Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)].
基于安全原因吊销一个人的护照只用开事后听证会[Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)]。
Education, healthcare, housing, and employment are not fundamental rights, but almost all states have passed education acts allowing residents to attend government-funded public education through high school graduation. Thus, although public education is not a fundamental right, it is a legitimate property interest (legitimate right). Therefore, if a student is disciplined and deprived of the right to attend school for more than 10 days, a hearing is required. For shorter suspensions, a formal hearing might not be required, but the student must be given an opportunity to respond [Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)]. However, if a student is dismissed for academic reasons, only an opportunity to respond is required [Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978)].
教育、医疗、居住、就业都不是基本权利（fundamental right），但各个州基本都通过教育法案，允许居民参加政府出资的义务教育到高中毕业。这样义务教育（public education）虽然不是基本权利，却是法定权利（legitimate right）。所以如果学生被纪律处罚被剥夺去学校的权利10天以上，需要召开听证会。更短的时间或许不用召开听证会，但要给学生陈述申辩的机会[Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)]。但如果因为成绩不好被退学，只需要给学生陈述申辩的机会[Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978)]。
If the law stipulates that one can only be fired for "cause," then continued public employment is a legitimate interest. Before termination, a brief opportunity to respond is usually required, unless there is a significant reason not to do so, such as being charged with a felony [Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997)]. Regardless of whether an opportunity to respond was given before termination, a full evidentiary hearing must be held after termination [Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)]. If the public employee prevails, back pay for the interim period must be awarded.
如果法律规定必须有好的理由才能被解雇，那么继续担任公务员（public employment）就是合法的利益（legitimate interest），解雇之前通常要给一个简单的解释机会，除非有显著的理由不必这么做，比如被控重罪[Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997)]。无论解雇之前有没有给解释机会，在解雇后都必须要举行完整的听证会[Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)]。如果公务员胜诉，期间的工资要得到补发。
For individuals whose rights are adversely affected, the government must provide advance notice and inform them of their right to request a hearing.
对于权利被不利影响的人，政府需要提前给行政相对人通知，并告知其有权申请听证会。
If a piece of land is sold at a judicial tax sale due to unpaid taxes, both the property owner and the mortgagee must be notified. [Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983)]
如果一块土地因为欠税被司法拍卖，地产所有人和抵押权人都必须被通知到。[Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983)]
Pre-judgment attachment usually requires advance notice to the defendant and a hearing to listen to both parties. However, if the plaintiff posts a security bond and meets certain other conditions, notice to the defendant might not be required.
诉前保全通常需要提前通知被告并开庭听取双方意见。但如果原告提供适当的担保（posts a security bond）并满足其他一些条件，或许可以不用通知被告。
If the administrative counterpart has already undergone an equivalent or stricter due process procedure, the collateral punishment can be considered to have satisfied due process.
如果行政相对人之前已经经历了同等或者更严格的正当程序，附带的惩罚可以认为已经满足了正当程序。
If the bar association rules stipulate that a perjury conviction results in disbarment, the disbarment process does not require an additional hearing, because the criminal conviction process is protected by stricter due process. The bar association generally does not stipulate that crimes unrelated to honesty are severe enough to warrant disbarment, so a hearing is usually required to determine what penalty to impose on the attorney.
如果律师协会规定伪证罪会被吊销执照，吊销的过程就不必额外开听证会了，因为定罪过程收到更严格的正当程序的保护。律协一般不会规定和诚信无关的犯罪也严重到要吊销律师执照，所以通常要开一个听证决定给予律师怎样的处罚。
实质性正当程序Substantive Due Process
The due process we learned earlier should be preceded by the word "procedural." In contrast, substantive due process applies to the review of laws affecting everyone: if a law infringes upon rights guaranteed by the First through Eighth Amendments, or fundamental rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such a law must pass strict scrutiny. [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)]
我们之前学过的正当程序（due process）前面还要加个“程序性的”（procedural），与此相对的是实质性的正当程序（substantive due process），适用于审查针对所有人的法律：如果一个权利侵犯了第1-8修正案的权利，或者虽然没有被宪法提及，但是深深根植于合众国的历史和传统，并且隐含在有序自由中的基本权利，那么这种法律必须通过严格标准的审查。[Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)]
Different precedents have varying formulations of what interests substantive due process actually protects; the above quote is from a 2022 Supreme Court case. Earlier textbooks stated that it protects liberty, First Amendment rights, and fundamental rights, with fundamental rights limited to the right to travel, the right to privacy, and the right to vote.
不同的判例对实质性正当程序究竟保护什么法益有不同的表述，上面引述的是最高法院2022年的判例。更早的教材认为它保护的是自由（liberty）、第一修正案的权利和基本权利，而基本权利仅限于旅行权、隐私权和投票权。
When answering questions, we can understand fundamental rights as the rights under the First through Eighth Amendments, plus the rights to travel, privacy, and voting. Therefore, when we see a lawyer's license being revoked or a judge being forced to retire, and an option states that it "infringed upon the plaintiff's fundamental right to be a lawyer or judge," we know it must be an incorrect answer. More confusing options might include education, healthcare, or housing, none of which are fundamental rights.
做题时，我们可以把基本权利理解为第1-8修正案的权利和旅行权、隐私权、投票权。所以，当我们看到律师被吊销执照，法官被强制退休，选项中出现“侵犯了原告当律师、法官的基本权利”，就知道一定是错误答案。更迷惑一点的选项有教育、医疗、居住，这些都不是基本权利。
Note that the due process requirements for the federal government and the states are found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively.
需要注意对联邦和州的正当程序要求分别在宪法第5和第14修正案中。
隐私权Right to Privacy
The right to privacy is the second fundamental right we will study. Like the right to travel, it is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has confirmed through a series of cases that the Constitution protects:
隐私权是我们学习的第二个基本权利，它和旅行权一样，在宪法原文中并没有被提及。但最高法院通过一系列案例确认，宪法保护：
Inmates still enjoy the fundamental right to marry. Prisons may impose reasonable restrictions based on legitimate penological interests. However, a regulation requiring all inmates to obtain the warden's permission for compelling reasons before marrying was ruled unconstitutional. [Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)]
服刑人员依然享有结婚的基本权利。监狱可以基于合法的管理利益对其进行合理限制。不过，要求所有服刑人员结婚前必须获得监狱长格外开恩（compelling reasons）的规定被判违宪。[Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)]
Can local ordinances set a maximum occupancy limit for a house? Yes, because housing is not a fundamental right, so rational basis review applies [Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)]. Such a law is not invalid on its face; it is merely invalid as applied to family members.
地方法规是否可以给房子设人数上限呢？是可以的，因为居住并不是基本权利，用理性标准审查即可[Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)]。这样的法律并不会从字面上违宪（invalid on its face），只是对家人之间无效。
The right to privacy does not include the right to abortion. Previously, the Supreme Court held that an undue burden could not be placed on a pregnant woman's decision to have an abortion before the fetus became viable. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)] However, in 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stating that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, nor is it an essential component of ordered liberty. [Dobbs, supra]
隐私权不包括堕胎（abortion）的权利。曾经，最高法院判决不得在胎儿可以在体外存活（viable）之前给孕妇的堕胎决定施加过重的负担。[Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]但2022年，最高法院推翻了Roe v. Wade，因为堕胎权并没有深深根植于合众国的历史和传统，也并非有序自由（ordered liberty）的必要组成部分。[Dobbs, supra]
Following this reasoning, same-sex marriage is clearly not deeply rooted in America's history and tradition, yet the Supreme Court narrowly confirmed in 2015 that the right to marry between persons of the same sex is part of the right to privacy [Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)]. If the current Supreme Court were to hear the case, the conclusion would likely be the same as with the right to abortion, leaving it to individual states to decide. However, American social attitudes have changed significantly since that case, and it is expected that no state would re-legislate to ban same-sex marriage.
按照这个推理，同性结婚显然没有深深根植于美国的历史和传统，但最高法院在2015年以微弱的优势确认同性之间结婚的权利是隐私权的一部分[Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)]。如果是现在的最高法院来审理该案，结论大概率会和堕胎权一样，交由各州自行决定。不过该案后美国的社会观念也发生了较大的变化，预计并不会再有哪个州重新立法禁止同性结婚。
In Dobbs, there was even an opinion suggesting that rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution should be left to the states to decide, but this was only a minority view. For the MBE, we consider the right to abortion to be the only privacy right no longer protected by the Constitution, while the right to travel and other privacy rights, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, remain protected.
Dobbs案中甚至有观点认为，宪法没有明文提及的权利都应当留由各州去做决定，但这只是少数意见。在MBE考试中，我们认为宪法不再保护的隐私权只有堕胎权，而旅行权和其他隐私权虽然没有被宪法明文提及，依然受到保护。
Therefore, prohibiting women from traveling to states where abortion is legal to obtain an abortion remains unconstitutional because it infringes upon the right to travel [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, supra, Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion]. Although some states have begun legislating to ban abortion, in the foreseeable future, most states, including those on the East and West Coasts and populous states (with the exception of Texas), will continue to allow abortion.
所以，禁止妇女去堕胎合法的州堕胎依然是违宪的，因为它侵犯了旅行权[Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, supra, Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion]。虽然一些州开始立法禁止堕胎，但在可预见的未来中大多数州，包括东西海岸各州、人口众多的州（得克萨斯除外）都会继续允许堕胎。
平等保护Equal Protection
Equal protection means that states must provide the same protection to all people. It should be noted that most provisions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e., the Incorporation Doctrine), rather than the Equal Protection Clause. If substantive due process protects the constitutional rights, fundamental rights, and "ordered liberty" of all people, then the Equal Protection Clause reviews laws that classify people and treat different groups differently. A law violating equal protection can be about anything and does not necessarily have to relate to fundamental rights.
平等保护（equal protection）是指各州要为所有人提供一样的保护。需要注意的是，权利法案的大多数条款是通过第十四修正案的正当程序条款（Due Process Clause）适用于州的（即合并原则 Incorporation Doctrine），而不是平等保护条款。如果说实质性正当程序保护所有人的宪法权利、基本权利和“有序的自由”，那平等保护条款就是审查把人分开，然后给不同的人不同的待遇的法律。违反平等保护的法律可以是任何方面，不一定和基本权利有关。
People have the right to refuse medical treatment [Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)], but can be forced to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of a virus [Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)]. Furthermore, refusing medical treatment does not equate to a right to suicide, so criminalizing assisted suicide is not unconstitutional [Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)]. These are substantive due process issues under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
人们有权拒绝医疗[Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)]，但可以被强制接种疫苗以避免病毒的传播[Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)]。此外拒绝医疗不等于有权自杀，所以将协助自杀定义为犯罪并不违宪[Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)]。这是宪法第5修正案和第14修正案的实质正当程序问题。
A mother's parental rights were terminated, and she subsequently could not appeal because she lacked the money. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to seek custody cannot be denied simply due to poverty, as this violates both substantive due process and equal protection [M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996)].
母亲的抚养权被剥夺了，随后母亲因为没有钱而无法上诉。最高法院认为不能因为贫穷就剥夺了争取抚养权的基本权利，违反实质上的正当程序和平等保护[M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996)]。
Banning abortion is a substantive due process issue because it applies to everyone. However, since men seem not to be bound by this law, one could arguably say it is also an equal protection issue.
禁止堕胎是实质性正当程序问题，因为适用于所有人。不过男性似乎不受这条法律约束，要说是平等保护问题似乎也可以。
Example: Denying a marriage license to two people because their blood relationship is too close, without holding a hearing, is a procedural due process issue. But is the prohibition against closely related people marrying inherently a substantive due process issue or an equal protection issue?
如果不召开听证会就判定两个人因为血缘关系过于接近不予颁发结婚证，这是程序上的程序公平问题。但不允许血缘关系过于接近的人结婚本身是实质性的正当程序问题还是平等保护问题？
We can see that substantive due process and equal protection are sometimes difficult to distinguish, and the Supreme Court's decisions do not always strictly separate the two. In fact, because the text of the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to the federal government, the Supreme Court prefers to use substantive due process for its reasoning, or even simply holds that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment contains an "implied equal protection component." If it is purely a procedural issue, it violates "procedural due process"; if it is a substantive legal issue, the options will not present both due process and equal protection to confuse candidates, though you may need to distinguish them when writing an essay.
我们可以看到实质正当程序和平等保护有时候很难区分，最高法院的判决也不是非要区分这俩。事实上，因为平等保护条款从原文来看并不适用于联邦，最高法院更喜欢用实质性的正当程序来说理，甚至干脆就认为第5修正案正当程序条款中包含了“隐含的平等保护成分”。如果纯粹是程序问题，违反的是“程序上的正当程序”；如果法律问题，选项中不会同时出现正当程序和平等保护让考生为难，只是写论文的时候可能需要区分一下。
Example: Congress passes a law requiring stricter security checks for Black people. This looks like an obvious equal protection issue, but it can only be said to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the federal government.
国会立法要求黑人必须经过更严格的安检。这看起来是一个显然的平等保护问题，但只能说违反了第5修正案的正当程序，因为第14修正案不适用于联邦。
In the vast majority of cases, classifying people and treating them differently only needs to pass rational basis review. This is true unless the method of classification involves, for example, the suspect classifications or quasi-suspect classifications discussed below.
绝大多数时候把人分开、给予不同的人不同的待遇，只需要通过理性标准审查。除非分类的方法例如下面可疑的分类（suspect classification）或者比较可疑的分类（quasi-suspect classifications）。
Example: Imposing higher taxes on the rich. If the rich sue, claiming this law violates equal protection, they must prove that the law has no rational connection to the government's interest in reducing the wealth gap.
对富人收更多的税，富人如果起诉这条法律违反平等保护，需要证明该法律与政府消除贫富差距的利益之间没有任何关联。
The original intent of the Equal Protection Clause was to grant Black people the same rights as White people, but the drafters' vision was stifled almost as soon as the Fourteenth Amendment was born. The Supreme Court also played a role in this disgraceful history by allowing the "separate but equal" doctrine.
平等保护条款的初衷是为了让黑人获得和白人同等的权利，但起草者们的愿景几乎在第14修正案刚出生时就被扼杀。最高法院也在这段不光彩的历史中扮演了角色，允许了“隔离但平等”的制度。
The Supreme Court worked hard to uphold the "separate but equal" doctrine for over half a century. During this time, some cases attempted to limit the doctrine's harmful effects by emphasizing that it required states to provide Black people with opportunities equal to those of White people (even if formally separated). But the inherent absurdity of this approach—trying to achieve equality out of inequality—soon became apparent. As the Court later recognized, even racial classifications that claimed to have no tangible impact made the affected students feel inferior [McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U.S. 637 (1950)]. By 1950, the truth of the Fourteenth Amendment began to resurface: segregation can never be equal [Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)].
最高法院为“隔离但平等”的原则努力工作了半个多世纪。在此期间，一些案件试图通过强调它要求各州为黑人提供与白人相等（即使在形式上是分开的）的机会，来限制这一原则带来的恶果。但这种方法——试图从不平等中得到平等——的固有荒谬不久便变得显而易见。正如法院后来认识到的，即使是声称没有明显影响的种族区分，也让被影响的学生低人一等[McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U.S. 637 (1950)]。到1950年，第14修正案的真理开始重新浮现：隔离是不可能平等的[Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)]。
Example: True equality can only be achieved by allowing students of different races to attend the same public schools [Brown, supra].
只有允许不同种族的学生上同一所公立学校才能做到真正的平等[Brown, supra]。
In the groundbreaking Brown case, the Supreme Court completely overturned the system of racial segregation and firmly set out on a path to invalidate statutory racial discrimination by state and federal governments. While Brown focused on the legality of racial segregation in public education, the Supreme Court subsequently invalidated various race-based government actions. Race cannot be considered, let alone used to segregate people, on buses, at public beaches, on golf courses, in parks, or in the selection of grand or petit juries. This is the first suspect class we will study: if the government uses race, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor in any policy, it must pass strict scrutiny.
在具有开创性的Brown案中，最高法院彻底推翻了种族隔离制度。并坚定地走上了宣布各州和联邦政府的法定种族歧视无效的道路。Brown案关注的是公立教育中种族隔离的合法性，此后，最高法院陆续宣布各种基于种族的政府行为无效。在公交车、公共海滩、高尔夫球场、公园、陪审团甚至临时陪审团的选择中，都不允许考虑种族因素，更不能把人按照种族分开。这是我们学习的第一个可疑的分类（suspect class）：如果政府将种族、民族、原籍作为某个政策的考虑因素，必须要通过严格标准审查。
National origin is not citizenship (alienage). Congress can treat U.S. citizens, permanent residents (green card holders), and aliens differently, and can treat aliens holding passports from Country A differently from those holding passports from Country B. However, it cannot treat Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans differently, nor can it treat White and Black people holding passports from Country A differently. U.S. immigration programs have long used the country of birth to determine a person's priority date. But using the country of birth to distinguish among U.S. citizens is almost certainly unconstitutional.
原籍不是国籍，国会可以区别对待美国人、永久居民（绿卡持有人）和外国人，可以区别对待持有A国护照和B国护照的外国人，但不能区别对待同样是美国人的日裔和华裔，也不能区别对待同样持有A国护照的白人和黑人。美国的移民项目长期用出生国来决定一个人的排期。但如果用出生国来区别美国公民，则几乎一定是违宪的。
Example: Even in prisons, segregating people by race must pass strict scrutiny, such as when they must be temporarily separated for prison security [Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005)].
即使是在监狱，将人们依照种族分开也必须通过严格标准的审查，比如为了监狱安全不得不短暂分开[Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005)]。
If a racial classification policy must be implemented, it is typically to favor historically discriminated groups to serve the compelling interest of "remedying the past trauma suffered by these groups." A policy narrowly tailored to this interest can pass strict scrutiny, but it must use the least restrictive means.
如果说一定要出台种族分类政策的话，也是向曾经被歧视的族裔进行倾斜，维护“弥补这些族裔曾经受到的创伤”的重大利益，为了这个利益量身定做的政策可以通过严格审查，但必须要做到最小的侵害。
To remedy past discrimination against minority groups in voting, it is permissible to appropriately draw electoral districts to favor minority groups [United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977)]. The government cannot use racial quotas to remedy general societal discrimination; it can only act to remedy its own past discrimination or when it is a "passive participant" in specific private discrimination within its jurisdiction [City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)]. However, the policy must be narrowly tailored to remedy past discrimination. Implementing a policy to attract students of a certain race from outside the school district, when no discriminatory acts occurred outside the district, does not meet the narrowly tailored requirement [Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995)].
为了弥补少数族裔曾经在投票的时候被歧视，适当地划分选取向少数族裔倾斜是可以的 [United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977)]。政府不能为了弥补普遍的社会歧视而使用种族配额，只能弥补其自身的过去歧视，或者当政府是辖区内特定私人歧视的“消极参与者”时才能采取行动弥补[City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)]。但政策必须是为了弥补过去的歧视量身定做的，出台政策吸引学区以外的某族裔学生，但学区以外没有发生过歧视行为，这就不符合量身定做的条件[Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995)]。
Remedying past discrimination has become relatively rare in practice; in almost all other situations, reverse discrimination is strictly prohibited.
弥补过去的歧视实务上已经比较少见，其他情况几乎一律不允许反向歧视。
Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Equal protection does not permit treating people of one skin color one way and people of another skin color a different way. If two skin colors do not receive the same protection, then it is not equal. Therefore, a university's use of race as a factor—no matter how well-intentioned and sincerely implemented—cannot pass strict scrutiny. [Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)]
消灭种族歧视就要消灭干净（eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it）。平等保护不允许在对待某肤色人群时意味着一回事，而对待另一种肤色的人时却是另一回事。如果两种肤色没有得到同样的保护，那么它就不是平等的。所以，大学使用种族作为考虑因素——无论出于多么良好的意图并且是真诚实施的——都无法通过严格标准审查。[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)]
The second suspect classification is based on a person's immigration status (alienage). Aliens are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Regulating immigration is a federal power, so federal classifications based on immigration status only need to pass rational basis review. However, state and local governments must pass strict scrutiny, unless
第二个可疑分类是根据一个人的移民身份进行分类，外国人是受到第14修正案保护的。管理移民是联邦的权力，所以联邦对移民身份进行分类只需要通过理性审查，但州和以下的政府则必须通过严格标准审查，除非
Foreigners working in the United States must obtain a green card, an H-visa, or another visa category that permits employment. F-visas for studying generally do not allow employment, and other visas generally do not allow studying. This is because the federal government can classify based on immigration status, which is only subject to rational basis review.
外国人在美国工作必须获得绿卡、H类或者其他允许工作类别的签证，留学的F类签证通常就不可以工作，其他签证通常也不能学习，这是因为联邦可以针对移民身份进行分类，只需要通过理性标准审查。
A state government cannot require lawyers or notaries public to be citizens [Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984)], but it may perhaps require that individuals seeking to become lawyers or notaries public in the United States not be undocumented immigrants, as there is reason to believe that someone who violates the law themselves cannot practice law well.
州政府不能要求律师或者公证员必须是公民[Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984)]，但或许可以要求在美国的人考取律师或公证员不能是非法移民，因为有理由相信自己本身违反法律的人无法很好地实践法律。
Only a natural-born U.S. citizen can serve as President; a naturalized citizen (a foreigner who takes an oath to acquire U.S. citizenship) cannot serve as President. This is a requirement of the original text of the Constitution.
只有在出生时就是美国公民的人才能担任总统，归化（外国人宣誓加入美国国籍）的公民就不能担任总统，这是宪法原文的要求。
Prohibiting the children of undocumented immigrants from attending public schools failed rational basis review. In fact, the Court applied "rational basis with bite," requiring that the law further a "substantial state interest." This is a limited instance of "rational basis with bite" [Plyler, supra].
禁止非法移民的小孩就读公立学校就没能通过理性审查。事实上，法院采取了“带有牙齿的理性审查”（rational basis with bite），要求这条法律必须促进“实质性的州利益”（substantial state interest）。这是“带有牙齿的理性审查”的有限个例[Plyler, supra]。
State governments can also require that only citizens may apply when hiring police officers and primary and secondary school teachers [Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979); Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982)]. Considering that serving as a juror is also an important government function, federal courts and almost all state courts require jurors to be citizens.
州政府招聘警察和中小学老师的时候也可以要求只有公民能应聘[Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979); Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982)]。考虑到陪审员也是重要的政府职能，联邦法院和几乎所有州的法院都要求陪审员必须是公民。
Next, we discuss quasi-suspect classifications, for which courts generally apply intermediate scrutiny. The foremost among these is gender. Why is race a suspect classification, while gender is only a quasi-suspect classification? Unlike race, there are, after all, biological differences between men and women. If the reason for a law is the difference in biological structure or function between genders, it can usually pass intermediate scrutiny.
接下来讨论的是准可疑的分类、比较可疑的分类（quasi-suspect classifications），法院通常用中等审查。首当其冲的是性别。为什么种族是最可疑的分类，而性别只是比较可疑的分类呢？和种族不同，男女毕竟有生理上的差异。如果一个法律的原因是不同性别生理构造或机能的不同，通常可以通过中等标准的审查。
Requiring only men to register for the draft is permissible [Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)]. Statutory rape laws that punish only men are also permissible [Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)]. It is also permissible for children born out of wedlock overseas to female citizens to automatically acquire U.S. citizenship, while male citizens must provide a series of documents to prove paternity [Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)].
只要求男性进行兵役登记是可以的[Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)]。法定强奸罪只惩罚男性也是可以的[Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)]。女性公民的海外非婚生子女可以自动获得美国公民，但男性就必须要提供一系列文件证明“你娃是你娃”也是可以的[Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)]。
However, a state military academy's refusal to admit women failed intermediate scrutiny because there are indeed some women who can meet the school's physical requirements [United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)]. A state nursing school's refusal to admit men is also unjustified [Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982)]. Laws that give preference to men in estate distribution or require alimony to be paid only to women all fail to pass scrutiny [Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971); Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)]. A law allowing women to drink alcohol at a younger age is also unconstitutional [Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)].
但州立军校不招女性就没有通过中等审查，因为的确有一些女性可以达到学校的体检要求[United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)]。州立护士学校不招男性也没有道理[Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982)]。遗产分配男性优先或者要求赡养费女性优先这类法案统统是通不过的[Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)]。允许更小的女性饮酒的法律也不合宪[Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)]。
As with racial discrimination, to remedy past discrimination against women, reverse discrimination against men is occasionally permitted [Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975)], provided the policy is substantially related to remedying past discrimination.
和种族歧视一样，为了弥补过去对女性的歧视，偶尔也允许反向歧视一下男性[Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975)]，政策与弥补过去的歧视实质性相关就好。
The second quasi-suspect classification is the distinction between marital and nonmarital children (legitimacy classifications), which is subject to intermediate scrutiny.
第二个比较可疑的分类是对婚生子女和非婚生子女的区分（marital and nonmarital children, legitimacy classifications），需要通过中等标准审查。
The government may not enact policies that completely deprive nonmarital children of inheritance rights [Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977)], nor may it apply different statutes of limitations to marital and nonmarital children [Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988)].
政府不得出台政策完全剥夺非婚生子女的继承权[Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977)]，也不可以给婚生子女和非婚生子女不同的诉讼时效[Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988)]。
However, the government can require nonmarital children to prove paternity before the father's death, in order to protect the government's interest in the prompt disposition of estates and the avoidance of burdensome litigation [Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (1978)]. The federal government may also grant preferential citizenship rights to marital children because the federal government has broad power over immigration [Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)].
但政府可以要求非婚生子女必须在父亲死亡之前证明亲子关系，这样是为了维护政府迅速处置遗产避免诉累的利益[Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (1978)]。联邦政府也可以优先给予婚生子女公民权，因为在移民方面联邦政府有较大的权力[Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)]。
Sometimes a law does not distinguish on its face, but does so in its application; this is treated the same as facial discrimination.
有时候法律字面上不区分，但应用的时候区分，这样也当做字面上歧视来看待。
Because there were too many Chinese-owned laundries, a law was passed requiring prior approval to operate a laundry. It turned out that approvals were only granted to non-Chinese applicants. This clearly could not pass strict scrutiny. [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
因为华人开的洗衣店太多了，所以通过了一条开洗衣店必须预先获得批准的法律，结果发现只给非华裔发批准，这显然不能通过严格标准的审查。[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]
In the United States, the proportion of minority groups can vary greatly across different regions. Chinese Americans make up about 1.5% of the national population, but around 10% in the San Francisco area, and nearly 50% in Monterey Park, Los Angeles County. Therefore, it is inevitable that some public schools will have a large number of white students or a large number of minority students; such phenomena cannot be assumed to be entirely caused by discrimination. If a law is facially neutral and neutrally applied, we generally do not consider it a 14th Amendment issue, unless it can be proven that the legislative intent was to discriminate.
在美国，不同地区少数族裔的比例可能很不相同，华人在全美的比例大概约1.5%，但在旧金山地区达到了10%左右，在洛杉矶县的蒙特利公园市（Monterey Park），华人的占比达到了将近50%。所以这不可避免地出现一些公立学校白人很多，或者少数族裔很多，不能认为这样的现象都是歧视造成的。如果一条法律字面上没有歧视，应用的时候也没有歧视，我们通常不认为有第14修正案的问题，除非能够证明立法的目的就是为了歧视。
Statistical data showing a disproportionately high rate of the death penalty for Black defendants does not prove discrimination. [McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)]
统计数据表明黑人的死刑比例非常高不能证明歧视。[McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)]
A policy giving preference to veterans is not unconstitutional, even if the vast majority of veterans are men. [Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)]
优待退役军人的政策不违宪，即使退役军人绝大多数都是男性。[Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979)]
All other non-suspect classifications are subject to rational basis review, the most classic example being age.
其他不可疑的分类一律用理性标准审查，最经典的就是年龄。
A law mandating that state court judges retire at age 70 is not unconstitutional, because the state's concern about the decline in judges' abilities due to aging is rational, and being a judge is not a fundamental right. Interestingly, the Supreme Court Justices who decided this law was constitutional are not subject to mandatory retirement based on age [Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991)]. Similarly, a law requiring police officers to retire at age 50 is also rational [Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976)]. Recall that procedural due process is only concerned with factual disputes; as long as there is no dispute about age, one retires upon reaching the age limit. Judges and police officers have no right to demand a hearing on whether their mental and physical capacities remain adequate for the job.
强制州法院的法官70岁退休的法律不违宪，因为州对法官因为年龄的增长而各方面能力退化的担忧是合理的，而且当法官也不是一项基本权利。有意思的是，决定这条法律合宪的最高法院大法官们不会因为年龄被强制退休 [Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991)]。同理，要求警察50岁必须退休的法律也是合理的[Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307]。回顾一下程序性正当程序只关心事实争议，只要对年龄没有争议，那么到龄就退休。法官和警察没有权利要求对自己的智力、体力是否能继续胜任工作召开一个听证会。
Other classifications you might or might not think of are generally also non-suspect: refusing to provide government funding for abortions, requiring students to attend schools within their district (so that wealthy people can attend better public schools), and requiring buildings without fire hydrants to purchase fire insurance. We generally permit such laws, but occasionally some fail rational basis review.
其他你想得到想不到的分类通常也是不可疑的：拒绝为堕胎提供政府经费，只能在学区内入读（这样有钱人才能上好的公立学校），没有装消防栓的建筑要买防火险。一般我们都允许这样的法律，但偶尔也有通不过理性审查的。
"Persons with disabilities and those who need to care for children under 5 years old may receive unemployment benefits" is subject to rational basis review. First, what is implicated here are employment or property rights, which are not liberty or fundamental rights. Second, this is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, even if the majority of those needing to care for children under 5 are women.
“残障人员和有5岁以下小孩需要照顾的人可以领取失业补助”适用理性审查。首先这里侵犯的就业或者财产权利，这不是自由或者基本权利。其次这里并不是可疑或比较可疑的分类，即便有5岁以下小孩需要照顾的大多都是女性。
Denying food stamps to striking workers is constitutional. Striking is not a fundamental right, and the government can easily pass rational basis review (e.g., to save money or maintain neutrality in labor disputes). The statute also does not infringe upon the right of association, as it does not distinguish between those who strike with a union and those who strike independently. [Lyng v. Automobile Workers, 485 U.S. 360 (1988)]
拒绝为罢工的人发放食品券是合宪的，罢工不是基本权利，政府很容易通过理性审查（比如节省开支，或者在劳资双方中保持中立）。法案也不侵犯人们结社的权利，它没有区别对待和工会一起罢工的人和单独罢工的人。[Lyng v. Automobile Workers, 485 U.S. 360 (1988)]
Denying public education to children of undocumented immigrants failed rational basis review [Plyler, supra]. However, if a minor moves to a school district alone, away from their parents, solely for the purpose of attending a better school, they can be denied tuition-free admission [Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983)].
不允许非法移民的子女上学没有通过理性审查[Plyler, supra]，但如果父母不在身边，仅仅是为了上好学校一个人搬过来则可以被拒绝入学[Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983)]。
Individuals with intellectual disabilities do not constitute a suspect classification, nor is housing a fundamental right. However, prohibiting individuals with intellectual disabilities from living together in a group home does not rationally relate to any legitimate government interest and thus failed rational basis review. [City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)]
智力障碍的人并不是可疑的分类，居住权也不是基本权利。但禁止智力障碍的人住在一起并不和任何政府利益相关，没有通过理性审查。[Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.*, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)]
Some city governments prohibited discrimination against homosexuals, but the state government passed a constitutional amendment forbidding cities from doing so. Although homosexuality was not considered a suspect classification, and the rights to housing and employment are not fundamental rights, the state constitutional amendment lacked any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest other than animus toward homosexuals, and thus failed rational basis review. [Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)]
一些市政府禁止对同性恋进行歧视，州政府则通过了一条宪法修正案禁止市政府这么做，虽然同性恋不是可疑的分类，居住、就业权也不是基本权利，但州宪法除了为了恶心同性恋以外，并不和任何政府利益相关，没有通过理性审查。[Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)]
执行条款Enforcement Clauses
Let us return to Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment. Slavery in the true sense has disappeared in the United States. Therefore, we primarily focus on Section 2, which allows Congress to pass appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment. The Court has been willing to interpret this broadly, granting Congress the power to prohibit private racial discrimination because racial discrimination is a "badge and incident of slavery." This is the only testable point for this clause.
我们回过头来学习第13修正案第2款，真正意义上的奴隶制在美国已经消失。所以我们主要学习第2款：允许国会通过适当立法来保障该修正案的实施，法院愿意扩大解释这一条到国会有权禁止私人的种族歧视，因为种族歧视是奴隶制的标志。这是该条款唯一的考点。
Congress can legislate to prohibit racial discrimination in private school admissions and private employment [Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976); Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989)]. Recall that in 1964, when imposing similar regulations on restaurants, the Court still relied on the Commerce Clause [Katzenbach, supra]. However, in 1968, the Court laid its cards on the table, using the seemingly unrelated Thirteenth Amendment to support Congress's prohibition of private racial discrimination [Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968)]. This allowed Congress to prohibit racial discrimination even in activities unrelated to commerce. We can also see from this case that Supreme Court precedents are not immutable; the Court has openly acknowledged that as times change, even its own precedents need not be strictly followed [The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U.S. 443 (1851)].
国会可以立法禁止私校招生和私企招聘时种族歧视[Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989)]。我们回顾下1964年在对餐馆进行类似规定的时候，法院还在用贸易条款[Katzenbach, supra]，但在1968年法院摊牌了，把看似不相关的13修正案用于支持国会禁止私人的种族歧视[Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968)]，这样和贸易不相关的行为也可以被禁止种族歧视。我们还可以从这个案例看到，最高法院的判例也不必一成不变，最高法院公开承认随着时代的变化，即使是本院的先例也不必被严格遵循[The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U.S. 443 (1851)]。
Congress does not seem to have a direct constitutional source of power to prohibit private gender or age discrimination; currently, many private primary and secondary schools admit only boys or only girls. However, private companies must be much more careful regarding gender discrimination, because Congress has utilized its commerce power to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has now been expanded to include discrimination based on sexual orientation.
国会似乎并没有直接的法源来禁止私人的性别或者年龄歧视，现阶段很多私立中小学只招收男生或者女生。但是私企在性别歧视的时候则需要小心很多，因为国会已经利用贸易权通过了《民权法》（Civil Rights Act of 1964），现在还将性别歧视扩大为包括对性取向的歧视。
In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment (voting rights for Black citizens), and the Nineteenth Amendment (voting rights for women) all contain similar language, collectively known as Enforcement Clauses. As we mentioned when studying the Eleventh Amendment, these Enforcement Clauses can be used to abrogate a state government's sovereign immunity from being sued by citizens in federal court. As a reminder, it is not the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments themselves that allow citizens to sue state governments in federal court; Congress must first enact legislation pursuant to Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
事实上，第14修正案、15修正案（黑人投票权）、19修正案（女性投票）都有类似的表述，他们统称为执行条款（Enforcement Clause）。我们在学习11修正案的时候提到过，用执行条款可以剥夺州政府不得被公民在联邦法院起诉的特权。再次提醒，并不是第13、14修正案本身让公民可以在联邦法院起诉州政府，必须要在国会根据第13修正案第2款或14修正案第5款订立法律后才行。
Congress can legislate under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide that citizens discriminated against by state governments on the basis of race or gender may sue the state in federal court. Because the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments were ratified after the Eleventh Amendment, they supersede the Eleventh Amendment, making such legislation valid.
国会根据第14修正案立法规定公民如果因种族或性别被州政府歧视，可以将州政府起诉到联邦法院。因为13、14、15、19修正案在第11修正案之后通过，所以优先于第11修正案，立法有效。
In contrast, if Congress were to legislate under the Article I Commerce Clause to allow citizens to sue a state government in federal court for placing an undue burden on interstate commerce, such legislation would violate the Eleventh Amendment [Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)].
作为对比，国会如果依据宪法第1条贸易条款规定公民的跨州贸易如果被州政府施加过重的负担可以在联邦法院起诉州政府，就违反了第11修正案[Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)]。
Also acting under Article I, however, Congress can legislate to allow a bankruptcy trustee to sue a state government in federal court to recover debts, because the Framers' original intent was to abrogate state sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings [Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006)].
同样是依据宪法第1条，国会却可以立法规定企业破产管理人在联邦法院起诉州政府追债，因为且立宪者原意就是破产案件要剥夺州的主权豁免[Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006)]。
Can Congress use Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to require state governments to provide equal protection to groups not otherwise protected by the Constitution? For example, since age discrimination normally only needs to pass rational basis review, could Congress legislate to require state governments to pass strict scrutiny, or outright ban any form of age discrimination? The Supreme Court has held that the enforcement clauses of these amendments are only meant to provide prevention and remedies for unconstitutional discrimination, not to grant Congress the power to expand protection to groups not otherwise protected by the Constitution [City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)].
国会能否用14条第5款要求州政府平等保护本来不受宪法保护的群体？比如，本来年龄歧视只需要通过理性标准审查，国会能否立法要求州政府必须通过严格标准审查，或者干脆禁止任何形式的年龄歧视？最高法院认为，这些修正案的执行条款只是用来提供违宪歧视的预防和救济，而不是给国会权利来扩大保护本来并不受宪法的群体[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]。
If Congress legislates under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to require state governments to provide equal protection to judges of different ages—for example, by prohibiting mandatory retirement ages for judges—such a law would be unconstitutional.
国会依据第14修正案第5款立法规定州政府必须给不同年龄的法官提供平等的保护，比如不得给法官设定退休年龄，该法律违宪。
However, Congress can easily achieve this through the Commerce Clause, especially by mandating that no business may discriminate against older employees, and requiring state governments to comply equally.
但是国会其实可以通过贸易条款轻易做到这一点，尤其是如果规定任何企业都不能歧视老年员工，州政府也必须一视同仁。
组合运用Combined Application
Let's summarize the two most important testable areas in Constitutional Law: due process and equal protection. First, we look at whether the government action targets everyone, a class of people, or an individual (or a small group). If it targets everyone, we consider whether a fundamental right is involved. If so, it usually must pass strict scrutiny; otherwise, it violates substantive due process. There are a few exceptions, such as the right of inmates to marry, which only requires rational basis review.
我们总结一下正当程序和平等保护这两个宪法篇最重要的考点，我们先看政府行为是针对所有人，一类人还是一个人（一小部分人）。如果是所有人，我们考虑是不是基本权利。如果是，则通常需要通过严格标准的审查，否则违反了实质性的程序公平（substantive due process）。有少量例外，比如服刑人员的结婚权利只需要通过理性审查。
If it targets a class of people, we must consider equal protection issues, which are divided into suspect classifications, quasi-suspect classifications, and non-suspect classifications, subject to strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review, respectively. Although the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the federal government, if the discrimination comes from the federal government, we can argue that the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment yields the same result.
如果针对的是一类人，我们要考虑平等保护（equal protection）的问题，这分为最可疑的分类、比较可疑的分类和不可疑的分类，分别用严格标准审查、中等标准审查和理性审查。虽然第14修正案平等保护的原文不适用联邦政府，但如果是来自联邦政府的歧视，我们可以论述第5修正案正当程序条款能带来同样的效果。
Finally, if it targets an individual or a small group of people, we look at whether there is a pre- or post-deprivation hearing, or at least an opportunity to be heard; otherwise, it may violate procedural due process. We examine the three factors from the Mathews case to determine the specific form of procedural safeguards.
最后如果针对的是一个人或者一小部分人，我们看是否有事前、事后开听证会或者至少给一个陈述申辩的机会，否则可能违反了程序性的程序公平（procedural due process）。考察Mathews案中的三个要素来决定程序保障的具体形式。
To reiterate, a hearing is only required when there is a factual dispute. If a law provides that a person who refuses to take a breathalyzer test will have their driver's license suspended for 90 days, and the individual does not dispute her refusal to take the test but merely disagrees with the rule, no hearing is required (though she may challenge the law itself in court). Due process also does not require a hearing prior to the suspension of the license under this law, because the loss of a license for 90 days is not that severe a deprivation for the driver, police are unlikely to mistakenly observe an applicant's refusal to take the test, and the government has a compelling interest in quickly removing such drivers from the road rather than allowing them to delay indefinitely through hearings [Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979)].
再次强调，事实争议才需要开听证会。法律规定拒绝做呼气测试的人会被吊销90天驾照，如果当事人对她拒绝做酒精测试的行为没有异议，仅仅是对这条规定不满，不需要听证会（当然他可以就这条法律本身向法院提起诉讼）。正当程序也不需要这条法律规定在吊销驾照之前召开听证会，因为吊销90天的驾照对司机的损失并没有那么大，警察不大可能错误观察申请人拒绝做酒精测试的行为，且政府有必要将这类司机快速地从马路上清除出去，而不是让他们通过听证会无限拖延[Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979)]。
After establishing the standard of review, we presume that most government actions will fail strict scrutiny, but the following situations have passed strict scrutiny:
在确立审查标准之后，我们预设大部分严格标准审查都无法通过，但以下情况通过了严格标准审查：
Most government actions will pass rational basis review. The following situations failed rational basis review, usually because the government fabricated an untenable so-called interest:
大部分理性审查都可以通过，以下情况没有通过理性标准审查，通常是因为政府编了一个站不住脚的所谓利益：
选举和被选举权Right to Vote and Right to Be a Candidate
The last fundamental right we will introduce is the right to vote. The 15th Amendment prohibits denying citizens the right to vote based on race. The 19th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote based on sex. The 24th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote for failure to pay a poll tax. The 26th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older on account of age. You do not need to memorize the amendment numbers.
我们介绍的最后一个基本权利是选举权。宪法第15修正案禁止因种族剥夺公民投票权。宪法第19修正案禁止因性别剥夺公民投票权。宪法第24修正案禁止以没有纳税为由剥夺投票权。宪法第26修正案禁止因年龄剥夺18岁以上公民的投票权。可以不用记数字。
Fundamental rights only include the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to vote, and perhaps the rights under the 1st through 8th Amendments. Any other fundamental rights appearing in the questions are definitely incorrect options.
基本权利（fundamental rights）只有旅行权、隐私权、选举权，或许还包括宪法第1-8修正案的权利。题目中出现其他基本权利一定是错误选项。
The right to vote can be denied to felons. In practice, non-citizens and Native Americans were also historically denied the right to vote for a long time.
可以剥夺重罪犯的投票权，实务上长久以来也不给非公民、原住民投票权。
Of course, the government cannot condition the right to vote on property ownership, nor can it place polling stations in areas inaccessible to the general public. However, it can require voters to show ID and require individuals to reside in the district for a relatively short period—such as 30 days—to be eligible to vote. This is to prevent a large number of non-residents from coming in just to vote and then leaving. But an excessively long residency requirement (e.g., 1 year) is invalid, as it would infringe upon voters' right to travel.
政府当然也不能通过一个人是否拥有房产来决定投票权，更不能把投票站放在一般民众无法出入的地方，但可以要求投票的人出示ID，并且要求居住在本区一个相对较短的时间的人才有资格投票——比如30天。这是为了避免大量外地的人过来投完票就走。但太长的居住时间要求（比如1年）是不行的，会影响选民的旅行权。
Voting requires 'one person, one vote,' unless the nature of the governing body is so specialized that an alternative voting method is reasonable. To date, the Supreme Court has only approved allowing residents of water storage districts to allocate voting weight based on the value of their land.
投票要求一人一票，除非管理机构的性质非常特别以至于按照其他的方式投票是合理的，最高法院迄今为止只批准蓄水区（water storage districts）的居民按照他们的土地价值分配投票权重。
Political contributions are also a frequently discussed issue. Although contributing to politicians is part of freedom of speech, laws regulating political contributions only need to pass intermediate scrutiny—not strict scrutiny. For ease of memory, you can consider such laws as regulating 'speech expressed through conduct,' and laws restricting such conduct are typically subject to intermediate scrutiny.
政治捐款也是被讨论的比较多的问题。虽然对政治人物的捐款也是言论自由的一部分，但规范政治捐款的法律只需要通过中等审查——而不是严格审查，为了方便记忆，可以考虑这类法律是规范“用行动表达言论自由”，限制这类行为的法律通常都是中等标准的审查。
To prevent corruption, laws setting contribution limits can pass intermediate scrutiny [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)]. However, it is unconstitutional to unilaterally raise the contribution limits for a less wealthy candidate simply because their opponent is exceedingly wealthy [Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008)].
为了避免腐败，设置捐款上限的法律能够通过中等审查 [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)]，但如果因为竞争对手过于富有，单方面提高不那么有钱的竞选人的捐款上限就不合宪了[Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008)]。
Although direct contributions to candidates can be limited, neither the candidate's own expenditures nor independent expenditures by others on behalf of the candidate can be restricted [Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)]. In practice, supporters will establish independent expenditure-only committees (such as Super PACs), and there are no limits on contributions to such independent organizations.
虽然可以限制直接对候选人进行捐款，但无论是候选人自己花钱，还是其他人为候选人花钱都是不能被限制的[Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)]。实务上，支持者会成立独立的竞选开销机构（如Super PAC），对这种独立机构的捐款没有上限。
Restrictions on the right to be a candidate can be more extensive than those on the right to vote. Ordinary restrictions only need to pass rational basis review, but severe restrictions must pass strict scrutiny.
被选举权的限制就可以比选举权多一些，一般的限制值需要通过理性标准审查，但严重的限制需要通过严格标准审查。
Requiring a new political party to collect a sufficient number of signatures in every district to be on the ballot creates a severe burden on the new party's participation and must pass strict scrutiny [Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992)].
要求新政党在每个选区收集足够数量的签名才能参选，这对新政党参选形成了重大障碍，必须通过严格标准审查[Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279 (1992)]。
To prevent ballot overcrowding, the government may require candidates to demonstrate sufficient support to have their names appear on the ballot, such as signatures from at least 1% of voters [Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986)]. To prevent fraudulent signatures, the government may also require the disclosure of the names and addresses of these signatories [Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010)].
为了避免过多的候选人，政府可以要求候选人必须拿到足够支持才能让名字出现在选票上，比如至少1%选民的签名[Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986)]，为了避免虚假签名，政府还可以要求公示这些签名者的名字和地址[Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010)]。
Similarly, to prevent a chaotic array of names from appearing on the ballot, a state may ban write-in voting (where write-in candidates do not appear on the ballot), especially in states where it is not difficult to become a candidate [Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)].
同样，为了避免五花八门的名字出现在选票上，可以禁止在选票上“另选他人”（write-in candidates do not appear on the ballot），尤其是在成为候选人并不难的州[Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)]。
Most states require the governor to be at least 30 or 25 years old to hold office, but gender or racial restrictions are obviously impermissible.
大多数州就要求州长必须30岁或者25岁以上才能担任，但性别或种族限制是显然不行的。
The government may also require candidates to pay a certain filing fee, but it cannot exclude indigent candidates. To prevent the misuse of public funds, the government may also reasonably prohibit its employees from running for office [United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)].
政府也可以要求参选人必须缴纳一定的费用，但不能把贫穷的竞选人排除在外。为了避免公帑私用，政府也可以合理地禁止雇员参选[United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)]。
Partisan gerrymandering (drawing electoral districts to favor one's own party) is generally a non-justiciable political question [Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)]. However, if race is the predominant factor in drawing electoral districts, it is subject to strict scrutiny [Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)].
党派会为了自己有利的方式来划分选区（gerrymandering），这通常是不可诉的政治问题[Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)]，但如果划分选区考虑了种族因素，需要通过严格标准的审查[Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995)]。
法官、总统和议员的工资Salaries of Judges, the President, and Members of Congress
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution is the most recently adopted amendment to date. It requires that no law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. This amendment was proposed at the same time as the Bill of Rights, but it was not until 1992—202 years later—that a college student, hoping to get a better grade on his paper, pushed for the amendment to be ratified by enough states to become part of the Constitution.
宪法第27修正案是到目前为止最后一条被通过的修正案，要求改变议员工资的法律不得在新的一届众议员选出之前生效。这是一条和权利法案被同时提出的宪法修正案，但直到1992年，也就是202年后，因为一名大学生希望自己的论文得到更好的分数，才推动该修正案获得了足够州的批准成为了宪法的一部分。
In contrast, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the President's compensation shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected. Article III, Section 1 provides that the compensation of judges (of Article III courts) shall not be diminished during their continuance in office, but it may be increased.
作为对比，宪法第2条第1款规定总统的工资在任期内不得增加也不得减少，第3条第1款规定（第3条法院的）法官的工资在任期之内不得减少，但可以增加。
If Congress passes a law to immediately reduce the salaries of its members, opposing members can immediately sue in court. Unlike the previous situations where members of Congress usually lack standing, this law affects their personal interests, so they have standing. Not only do they have standing, but the immediate implementation of the law is also highly likely unconstitutional, or at the very least, the bill cannot take effect until after the next election of Representatives.
国会立法立刻削减议员的工资，反对的议员可以立刻起诉到法院。和前面议员通常不适格不同，这条法律影响的是议员的切身利益，是适格的。不仅适格，大概率也是违宪的，或者该法案至少也要等到下一届众议员选出之前才能生效。