📚 The extent of Supreme Court power | 最高法院权力的范围
The extent of Supreme Court power is a central topic in Edexcel A-Level Politics, especially in the US comparative unit. Students must understand how the Court has gained the authority to interpret the Constitution, how judicial review shapes American government, and what formal and informal limits constrain that power. This article examines the constitutional foundations, key cases, institutional checks, and political realities that define the reach of the Supreme Court.
最高法院权力的范围是 Edexcel A-Level 政治学美国比较单元的核心主题。学生必须理解最高法院如何获得解释宪法的权力、司法审查如何塑造美国政府，以及哪些正式与非正式限制约束了这种权力。本文考察宪法基础、关键判例、制度制衡以及界定最高法院权力边界的政治现实。
1. Constitutional Basis of Judicial Power | 司法权力的宪法基础
Article III of the US Constitution creates the Supreme Court and grants it ‘the judicial Power of the United States’. However, the text is brief and does not explicitly state that the Court may strike down laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the President. This silence has allowed the Supreme Court to define much of its own authority through interpretation and precedent.
美国宪法第三条设立了最高法院，并授予其‘合众国的司法权’。然而，该条文非常简短，并未明确规定最高法院可以推翻国会通过的法律或总统采取的行动。这种沉默使得最高法院能够通过解释和先例来界定自身的大部分权力。
Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, hold office ‘during good Behaviour’, which in practice means life tenure. This protects them from direct political pressure and enables them to make unpopular decisions. Yet the appointment process and the need for Senate confirmation mean that the judiciary is still linked to the elected branches.
包括最高法院大法官在内的联邦法官在‘行为良好’期间任职，实际上意味着终身任职。这使他们免受直接政治压力，并能够作出不受欢迎的裁决。然而，任命程序和参议院确认的需要意味着司法机构仍与民选部门相关联。
The Constitution also extends judicial power to cases ‘arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties’. This grant has been read broadly by the Court to include judicial review of both federal and state laws, although the specific power to invalidate legislation was established later by the Court itself.
宪法还将司法权扩展至‘因本宪法、合众国法律和条约而产生的案件’。最高法院对这一授权的解释较为宽泛，使其包括对联邦和州法律的司法审查，但宣布立法无效的具体权力是由最高法院后来自行确立的。
2. Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Review | 马伯里诉麦迪逊案与司法审查的确立
The landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison is the foundation of judicial review in the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court had the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. In doing so, the Court positioned itself as the final interpreter of the Constitution.
1803 年的马伯里诉麦迪逊案是美国司法审查的基石。首席大法官约翰·马歇尔裁定最高法院有权宣布国会法案违宪。由此，最高法院将自己定位为宪法的最终解释者。
Marshall argued that the Constitution is ‘the fundamental and paramount law of the nation’ and that judges must follow it over ordinary legislation. He reasoned that if two laws conflict, the courts must decide which one applies. This logic gave the Supreme Court a powerful tool to check both Congress and the executive branch.
马歇尔认为宪法是‘国家的根本和最高法律’，法官必须优先遵循宪法而非普通立法。他推论说，如果两部法律发生冲突，法院必须决定适用哪一部。这一逻辑赋予最高法院制衡国会和行政部门的强大工具。
Initially, judicial review was used sparingly. The Supreme Court did not strike down another federal law until Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. Over time, however, judicial review became a routine part of American constitutional practice, allowing the Court to shape policy on issues such as civil rights, federalism, and individual liberties.
最初，司法审查的使用较为节制。直到 1857 年德雷德·斯科特诉桑福德案，最高法院才再次推翻另一项联邦法律。然而，随着时间推移，司法审查成为美国宪法实践的常规部分，使最高法院能够在民权、联邦制和个人自由等议题上塑造政策。
3. Interpreting the Constitution: Originalism vs Living Constitution | 解释宪法：原旨主义与活宪法
A key debate about Supreme Court power concerns how justices should interpret the Constitution. Originalists argue that the Constitution should be understood according to the original public meaning of its text at the time it was written. They believe this approach limits judicial discretion and prevents judges from imposing their personal values.
关于最高法院权力的一个关键争论是大法官应如何解释宪法。原旨主义者主张应根据宪法文本在制定时的原始公共含义来理解。他们认为这种方法限制了司法裁量权，防止法官将个人价值观强加于人。
Living constitutionalists, by contrast, contend that the Constitution is a dynamic document whose principles must adapt to modern circumstances. They argue that broad phrases such as ‘equal protection’ and ‘due process’ require evolving interpretation to remain relevant. This view gives the Court more flexibility but also raises concerns about unelected judges making policy.
相比之下，活宪法论者认为宪法是一部充满活力的文件，其原则必须适应现代环境。他们认为‘平等保护’和‘正当程序’等宽泛用语需要不断演进的解释才能保持相关性。这种观点赋予最高法院更大的灵活性，但也引发了非民选法官制定政策的担忧。
The interpretive method chosen by a majority of justices directly affects the extent of the Court’s power. A strongly originalist Court may be less willing to recognise new rights not explicitly mentioned in the text, while a living constitutionalist Court may expand rights and strike down more state and federal laws.
多数大法官选择的解释方法直接影响最高法院权力的范围。一个强烈原旨主义的法院可能不太愿意承认文本中未明确提及的新权利，而一个活宪法主义的法院可能扩大权利并推翻更多州和联邦法律。
4. Limits on Jurisdiction and Justiciability | 管辖权与可诉性的限制
Despite its broad power of judicial review, the Supreme Court is not free to decide every constitutional question. Its jurisdiction is limited by the case or controversy requirement in Article III. The Court only hears actual legal disputes, not hypothetical questions or requests for advisory opinions.
尽管最高法院拥有广泛的司法审查权，但并非可以裁决所有宪法问题。其管辖权受宪法第三条‘案件或争议’要求的限制。最高法院只审理实际的法律争议，不处理假设性问题或咨询意见请求。
Justiciability doctrines further restrict the Court. To bring a case, a plaintiff must have standing, meaning a concrete and particularised injury caused by the defendant and redressable by a court. The case must also be ripe and not moot. These rules prevent the Court from acting as a general policymaker.
可诉性原则进一步限制了最高法院。提起诉讼的原告必须具备诉讼资格，即受到被告造成且法院可以救济的具体和特定损害。案件还必须成熟且未失去实际意义。这些规则防止最高法院充当一般政策制定者。
Congress also has some authority over the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, although the extent of this power is disputed. The Exceptions Clause allows Congress to make ‘exceptions’ to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, but it is unclear how far this can go without violating the separation of powers.
国会对最高法院的上诉管辖权也有一定控制权，尽管这种权力的范围存在争议。例外条款允许国会对最高法院的上诉管辖权作出‘例外’，但不清楚这种权力能在多大程度上行使而不违反分权原则。
5. The Political Question Doctrine | 政治问题原则
The Supreme Court has sometimes declined to rule on matters it considers ‘political questions’ better left to the elected branches. Under the political question doctrine, the Court refuses to hear cases involving issues that the Constitution assigns to the President or Congress, such as foreign policy decisions, impeachment procedures, or the recognition of foreign governments.
最高法院有时拒绝就其认为属于‘政治问题’、更适合由民选部门处理的事项作出裁决。根据政治问题原则，最高法院拒绝审理涉及宪法分配给总统或国会的问题，例如外交政策决定、弹劾程序或承认外国政府。
This doctrine is an important self-imposed limit on judicial power. It reflects the view that some constitutional disputes are not suitable for judicial resolution because they lack manageable standards or would require the Court to intrude into areas of executive or legislative discretion.
该原则是对司法权力的一种重要自我限制。它反映了一种观点，即某些宪法争议不适合司法解决，因为它们缺乏可操作的标准，或者要求最高法院侵入行政或立法裁量领域。
However, the political question doctrine is vague and has been applied inconsistently. Critics argue that it can allow the Court to avoid difficult constitutional questions, while supporters maintain that it preserves the separation of powers and prevents the judiciary from overreaching.
然而，政治问题原则较为模糊且适用不一致。批评者认为它可能使最高法院回避困难的宪法问题，而支持者则认为它维护了分权原则并防止司法越权。
6. Checks by Congress and the President | 国会与总统的制衡
The Supreme Court does not operate in a political vacuum. Congress can check the Court through several mechanisms, including the confirmation power over judicial nominees, the ability to change the size of the Court, and the power to initiate constitutional amendments. These tools allow the political branches to respond to judicial decisions they oppose.
最高法院并非在政治真空中运作。国会可以通过多种机制制衡最高法院，包括对司法提名人的确认权、改变法院规模的权力，以及启动宪法修正案的权力。这些工具使政治部门能够回应其反对的司法裁决。
For example, the Senate can delay or reject the President’s Supreme Court nominations, as seen in the 2016 refusal to hold hearings for Merrick Garland. Congress can also propose a constitutional amendment to overturn a Court ruling, although the supermajority requirements make this difficult.
例如，参议院可以拖延或否决总统的最高法院提名人选，如 2016 年拒绝为梅里克·加兰举行听证会。国会还可以提出宪法修正案来推翻最高法院的裁决，尽管绝对多数要求使这一途径十分困难。
The President checks the Court mainly through the appointment power and through the executive branch’s role in enforcing decisions. If a President disagrees with a ruling, the executive may be slow to implement it, although open defiance would raise serious constitutional crisis concerns.
总统主要通过任命权以及行政部门执行裁决的角色来制衡最高法院。如果总统不同意某项裁决，行政部门可能会拖延执行，但公开违抗将引发严重的宪法危机。
7. Enforcement and Implementation of Decisions | 判决的执行与实施
A famous weakness of the Supreme Court is that it relies on other branches to enforce its decisions. Chief Justice Marshall himself noted that the judiciary has ‘neither force nor will, but merely judgment’. When the Court issues a ruling, it must depend on the executive branch to carry it out and on public compliance.
最高法院一个著名的弱点在于它依赖其他部门来执行其裁决。首席大法官马歇尔本人就指出，司法部门‘既无强力也无意志，唯有判断’。最高法院作出裁决后，必须依靠行政部门执行并依赖公众遵守。
This dependence was evident in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Many Southern states resisted, and federal troops were needed in Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the ruling. President Eisenhower’s willingness to act showed how executive support is crucial for judicial power.
这种依赖在布朗诉教育委员会案（1954 年）裁决后的情况中表现得非常明显。该裁决宣布公立学校种族隔离违宪。许多南方州进行抵制，联邦军队不得不在阿肯色州小石城出动以执行裁决。艾森豪威尔总统愿意采取行动，表明行政支持对司法权力至关重要。
When the executive branch refuses to enforce a Court decision, or when lower courts interpret it narrowly, the practical reach of Supreme Court power shrinks. Thus the Court’s formal authority is always mediated by political and administrative realities.
当行政部门拒绝执行最高法院的裁决，或下级法院对其作狭义解释时，最高法院权力的实际范围就会缩小。因此，最高法院的正式权威始终受到政治和行政现实的中介。
8. Public Opinion and Judicial Legitimacy | 公众舆论与司法合法性
Unlike Congress and the President, the Supreme Court is unelected and serves life terms. Its power ultimately depends on public acceptance of its legitimacy. If the public loses faith in the Court as an impartial arbiter, its decisions may be ignored or resisted.
与国会和总统不同，最高法院并非民选且任职终身。其权力最终取决于公众对其合法性的接受。如果公众不再信任最高法院是公正的仲裁者，其裁决可能会被忽视或抵制。
Research shows that public support for the Supreme Court has fluctuated over time, often in response to controversial rulings on abortion, gun control, health care, and election disputes. When the Court is seen as too partisan or out of step with public opinion, its institutional standing can decline.
研究表明，公众对最高法院的支持随时间波动，通常是对堕胎、枪支管制、医疗保健和选举争议等争议性裁决的回应。当最高法院被视为过于党派化或与公众舆论脱节时，其机构声望可能下降。
However, the Court has sometimes issued rulings that were initially unpopular but later became accepted, such as expanding rights for criminal defendants or invalidating school prayer. This suggests that judicial power can shape public values over the long term, even if it faces short-term backlash.
然而，最高法院有时作出的裁决起初不受欢迎，但后来逐渐被接受，例如扩大刑事被告权利或废除学校祈祷。这表明司法权力能够在长期内塑造公众价值观，即使面临短期反弹。
9. Contemporary Debates on Supreme Court Power | 关于最高法院权力的当代辩论
In recent years, the extent of Supreme Court power has become a highly contentious political issue. Decisions on abortion, affirmative action, executive authority, and voting rights have intensified debates about whether the Court has become too powerful or too politicised.
近年来，最高法院权力的范围已成为一个极具争议的政治议题。关于堕胎、平权行动、行政权力和投票权的裁决加剧了关于最高法院是否变得过于强大或过于政治化的辩论。
Some scholars and politicians advocate Supreme Court reform, including proposals to add more justices, impose term limits, or restrict the Court’s jurisdiction. Supporters argue that such reforms would restore democratic accountability and reduce the influence of any single appointment.
一些学者和政治人物主张改革最高法院，包括增加大法官席位、设定任期限制或限制最高法院的管辖权。支持者认为这些改革将恢复民主问责并减少任何一次任命的影响力。
Others warn that drastic reforms would undermine judicial independence and the rule of law. They argue that the Court’s power to protect constitutional rights against majority tyranny is essential, even if individual decisions are controversial. This tension reflects the ongoing struggle to balance judicial power with democratic principles.
另一些人则警告，激进改革会削弱司法独立和法治。他们认为最高法院保护宪法权利免受多数暴政侵害的权力至关重要，即使个别裁决存在争议。这种张力反映了在司法权力与民主原则之间寻求平衡的持续斗争。
10. Comparative Perspective: US Supreme Court and Constitutional Courts | 比较视角：美国最高法院与宪法法院
Comparing the US Supreme Court with constitutional courts in other democracies can clarify the distinctive extent of its power. In the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court cannot strike down Acts of Parliament under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Its role is limited to interpreting statutes and ensuring that public bodies act lawfully.
将美国最高法院与其他民主国家的宪法法院进行比较，可以阐明其权力的独特范围。在英国，根据议会主权原则，最高法院不能推翻议会法案。其作用仅限于解释制定法并确保公共机构依法行事。
In contrast, the US Supreme Court can invalidate both federal and state legislation, making it one of the most powerful constitutional courts in the world. This has led some commentators to describe the US system as having a ‘juristocracy’, where unelected judges have substantial influence over policy.
相比之下，美国最高法院可以推翻联邦和州的立法，使其成为世界上最强大的宪法法院之一。这导致一些评论者将美国体制描述为‘法官统治’，即非民选法官对政策具有重大影响力。
However, the comparative view also shows that the Supreme Court is not unlimited. Its power is shaped by federalism, the appointment process, and the fragmented nature of the US political system, which means that sustained opposition from other institutions can constrain even the most assertive Court.
然而，比较视角也表明最高法院并非不受限制。其权力受到联邦制、任命程序以及美国政治体系碎片化特征的影响，这意味着其他机构的持续反对可以制约即使是最强势的最高法院。
Published by TutorHao | Politics Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导