WASHINGTON — There is no universally accepted definition of a constitutional crisis, but legal scholars agree about some of its characteristics. It is generally the product of presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings. It is not binary: It is a slope, not a switch. It can be cumulative, and once one starts, it can get much worse.

华盛顿——关于宪法危机并没有一个普遍接受的定义，但法律学者对于它的一些特征是有共识的。它通常是总统对法律和司法裁决蔑视的产物。宪法危机并不是非黑即白：它是一种渐进的过程，而不是非此即彼。它可能是累积性的，一旦开始，可能会变得一发不可收拾。

It can also be obvious, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley.

加州大学伯克利分校法学院院长欧文·切默林斯基说，宪法危机也可能是显而易见的。

“We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis right now,” he said Friday. “There have been so many unconstitutional and illegal actions in the first 18 days of the Trump presidency. We never have seen anything like this.”

“我们现在正处于一场宪法危机之中，”他上周五说道。“在特朗普担任总统的头18天里，出现了这么多的违宪和非法行为。我们从来没有见过这样的事情。”

He ticked off examples of what he called President Donald Trump’s lawless conduct: revoking birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, shutting down an agency, removing leaders of other agencies, firing government employees subject to civil service protections and threatening to deport people based on their political views.

他列举了他所称的特朗普总统无视法律的例子：取消出生公民权，冻结联邦支出，关闭一个机构，罢免其他机构的领导人，解雇受公务员保护的政府雇员，并威胁要根据政治观点驱逐人们。

That is a partial list, Chemerinsky said, and it grows by the day. “Systematic unconstitutional and illegal acts create a constitutional crisis,” he said.

切默林斯基表示，这还只是一部分，而且这个清单每天都在扩大。“系统性的违宪和非法行为会引发宪法危机，”他说。

The distinctive feature of the current situation, several legal scholars said, is its chaotic flood of activity that collectively amounts to a radically new conception of presidential power. But the volume and speed of those actions may overwhelm and thus thwart sober and measured judicial consideration.

几位法律学者表示，当前形势的显著特征是混乱的活动泛滥，这些活动共同构成了一种全新的、激进的总统权力概念。然而，这些行动的数量和速度可能会使司法系统应接不暇，从而阻碍其进行冷静和审慎的考虑。

It will take some time, though perhaps only weeks, for a challenge to one of Trump’s actions to reach the Supreme Court. So far he has not openly flouted lower court rulings temporarily halting some of his initiatives, and it remains to be seen whether he would defy a ruling against him by the justices.

对特朗普的行动挑战要到达最高法院需要一些时间，尽管可能只要几周。到目前为止，他还没有公开藐视下级法院暂时停止他的部分举措的裁决，他是否会无视大法官对他不利的裁决仍有待观察。

“It’s an open question whether the administration will be as contemptuous of courts as it has been of Congress and the Constitution,” said Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “At least so far, it hasn’t been.”

“政府是否会像蔑视国会和宪法一样蔑视法院，这仍是一个悬而未决的问题，”宾夕法尼亚大学法学教授凯特·肖说。“至少到目前为止，还没有。”

That could change. On Sunday, Vice President JD Vance struck a confrontational tone on social media. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he wrote.

这种情况可能会改变。上周日，副总统JD·万斯在社交媒体上采取了对抗的语气。“法官无权控制行政机关的合法权力，”他写道。

副总统JD·万斯周日在社交媒体上写道：“不允许法官控制行政部门的合法权力。”他的语气充满了对抗情绪。

Shaw said a clash with the courts would only add to a crisis that is already underway. “A number of the new administration’s executive orders and other executive actions are in clear violation of laws enacted by Congress,” she said.

肖说，与法院的冲突只会加剧已经开始的危机。她说：“新政府的一些行政命令和其他行政行动明显违反了国会制定的法律。

“The administration’s early moves,” she added, “also seem designed to demonstrate maximum contempt for core constitutional values — the separation of powers, the freedom of speech, equal justice under law.”

她还说，“政府的早期举措似乎也是为了最大程度地展现出蔑视宪法核心价值——三权分立、言论自由和法律面前人人平等。”

Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford University, added that a crisis need not arise from clashes between the branches of the federal government.

斯坦福大学法学教授帕梅拉·卡兰补充说，危机不一定是由联邦政府各部门之间的冲突引起的。

“It’s a constitutional crisis when the president of the United States doesn’t care what the Constitution says regardless whether Congress or the courts resist a particular unconstitutional action,” she said. “Up until now, while presidents might engage in particular acts that were unconstitutional, I never had the sense that there was a president for whom the Constitution was essentially meaningless.”

“当美国总统无视宪法的规定，不管国会或法院是否抵制某项违宪行为，这就是一场宪法危机，”她说。“到目前为止，虽然总统可能会采取某些违宪行为，但我从未感觉到有哪位总统会对宪法本质上是漠视的。”

The courts, in any event, may not be inclined or equipped to push back. So much is happening, and so fast, that even eventual final rulings from the Supreme Court rejecting Trump’s arguments could come too late. After the U.S. Agency for International Development or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are disassembled, say, no court decision can re-create them.

无论如何，法院可能并不倾向于反击，或不具备反击的能力。现在发生的事情太多、太快，即使最高法院最终做出最终裁决，驳回特朗普的主张，也可能为时已晚。例如，如果美国国际开发署或消费者金融保护局被解散，任何法院判决都无法重新创建它们。

In many cases, of course, the Supreme Court’s six-member conservative majority may be receptive to Trump’s arguments. Its decision in July granting him substantial immunity from prosecution embraced an expansive vision of the presidency that can only have emboldened him.

当然，在许多情况下，最高法院占多数的六名保守派大法官可能会支持特朗普的主张。最高法院7月的判决赋予了特朗普实质性的起诉豁免权，这一裁决采纳了对总统权力的广泛解释，只会让他更加大胆。

Members of that majority are, for instance, likely to embrace the president’s position that he is free to fire leaders of independent agencies.

例如，占多数的保守派法官可能会接受总统认为自己可以自由解雇独立机构领导人的立场。

The court may nonetheless issue an early, splashy ruling against Trump to send a signal about its power and independence. Striking down Trump’s order directing officials to deny citizenship to the children of immigrants would seem to be a good candidate, as it is at odds with the conventional understanding of the Constitution and the court’s precedents.

尽管如此，最高法院仍有可能尽早做出引人瞩目的裁决，反对特朗普的主张，以表明最高法院的权力和独立性。驳回特朗普指示官员拒绝给予移民子女出生公民权的命令似乎是一个合适的选择，因为这一命令与对宪法的传统理解和司法先例相悖。

Such a decision would have an added benefit: It would be hard to disobey. From its earliest days, the Supreme Court has been wary of issuing rulings that might be ignored.

这样的裁决还有一个好处：很难被违抗。自从成立初期，最高法院一直对发布可能被无视的裁决持谨慎态度。

“I’m reminded of Marbury v. Madison, when the government did not even bother to show up before the Supreme Court to defend its position — strongly suggesting it would flout any court order against it,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

“我想起了马伯里诉麦迪逊案，当时政府甚至懒得到最高法院为自己的立场辩护——这强烈表明它将藐视任何反对它的法院命令，”弗吉尼亚大学法学教授阿曼达·弗罗斯特说。

Even as the court ruled that the administration of Thomas Jefferson had acted unlawfully, she said, “the court carefully crafted its opinion in that case to avoid a ruling requiring executive branch compliance.”

她说，即使法院裁定托马斯·杰斐逊政府的行为不合法，“法院在该案中也精心撰写了意见书，以避免做出要求行政部门遵从的裁决。”

Much has changed since that 1803 decision, and the Supreme Court’s stature and authority have grown. “Nonetheless,” Frost said, “the Supreme Court may find it hard to defend the laws Congress enacted against executive usurpation when the Republican-controlled Congress refuses to do the same.”

自1803年的判决以来，情况发生了很大变化，最高法院的地位和权威也在不断提高。“尽管如此，”弗罗斯特说，“当共和党控制的国会拒绝采取行动时，最高法院可能会发现，很难捍卫国会为防止行政部门越权行为而制定的法律。”

Karlan said she worried that the justices would rule for Trump for fear that he would ignore decisions rejecting his positions. “The idea that courts should preserve the illusion of power by abdicating their responsibilities would just make the constitutional crisis even worse,” she said.

卡兰说，她担心大法官们会因为担心特朗普会无视驳回其主张的裁决，从而做出有利于他的裁决。“法院通过放弃自己的职责来维护权力的假象，这种想法只会让宪法危机变得更加严重，”她说。

Trump has already disregarded one Supreme Court decision, its ruling last month upholding a federal law, passed by lopsided bipartisan majorities, requiring TikTok to be sold or banned. Trump instead ordered the Justice Department not to enforce the law for 75 days, citing as authority for the move his “unique constitutional responsibility for the national security of the United States.”

特朗普已经无视了最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决于上个月支持了一项由两党压倒性多数通过的法律，要求TikTok必须出售，否则将会被禁。特朗普命令司法部在75天内不得执行这项法律，并以他“对美国国家安全负有独特的宪法责任”作为依据。

1957年，德怀特·D·艾森豪威尔总统向阿肯色州小石城派遣了101空降师，以执行1954年最高法院禁止公立学校种族隔离的布朗诉教育委员会案裁决。

Defiance of Supreme Court decisions is not unheard-of. Southern states, for instance, for years refused to follow Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that banned segregation in public schools, engaging in what came to be known as “massive resistance.”

藐视最高法院的裁决并非闻所未闻。例如，在1954年布朗诉教育委员会案判决后，南方各州多年拒绝遵守该裁决，该判决禁止在公立学校实行种族隔离。这些州采取了后来被称为“大规模抵制”的行动。

Even before this weekend, Vance has said that Trump should ignore the Supreme Court. In a 2021 interview, he said Trump should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state” and “replace them with our people.”

甚至在本周末之前，万斯就表示特朗普应该无视最高法院。在2021年的一次采访中，他表示特朗普应该“解雇所有中层官僚，解雇行政机构的所有公务员”，并且“用我们的人取而代之”。

He added: “When the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

他还说：“当法院阻止你时，要像安德鲁·杰克逊那样，站在整个国家面前说，‘大法官已经做出了裁决。现在让他自己来执行吧。’”

Chief Justice John Roberts took note of such threats in his year-end report in December.

首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在12月的年终报告中注意到了这种威胁。

“Every administration suffers defeats in the court system — sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics,” he wrote. “Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed, and the nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 1950s and 1960s.”

“每届政府都会在司法系统中遭遇挫败——有时是在对行政或立法权力或其他重要议题有重大影响的案件中，”他写道。“尽管如此，在过去几十年里，无论裁决是否受欢迎，最高法院的判决都得到了遵守，这使国家避免了困扰20世纪50年代和60年代的那种对峙局面。”

“Within the past few years, however,” the chief justice went on, “elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”

大法官继续写道：“然而，在过去几年里，来自不同政治派别的民选官员都提出了公然无视联邦法院裁决的威胁。这些危险的提议，即使只是偶尔出现，也都必须予以坚决反对。”

That view has many supporters, though some use caveats. “It would be an extremely grave matter for a president to defy an actual (unstayed, in-effect) order of a federal court in a case that is indisputably in the court’s jurisdiction,” Ed Whelan, a conservative legal commentator, wrote on social media.

这种观点有很多支持者，尽管一些人附加了条件。“在一个无可争议属于联邦法院管辖的案件中，总统违抗联邦法院的实际（未被延期、有效的）命令将是一件极其严重的事情，”保守派法律评论人士埃德·惠兰在社交媒体上写道。

But considering discrete clashes may be relying on an outdated paradigm.

然而，仅仅关注个别冲突可能是在依赖一种过时的范式。

大法官小约翰·罗伯茨在年终报告中警告了无视最高法院裁决的危险。

“One way to look at the administration’s assault on legal barriers is that it is seeking to establish ‘test cases’ to litigate and win favorable Supreme Court decisions,” Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith wrote in their Executive Functions newsletter. “But the typical test case is a carefully developed, discrete challenge to statutory or judge-made law with some good faith basis.”

“看待政府攻击这些法律障碍的一种方式是，它正在试图建立‘测试案件’，从而赢得最高法院的有利裁决，”鲍勃·鲍尔和杰克·戈德史密斯在他们的“行政职能”简报中写道。“但典型的测试案件是对成文法或判例法的谨慎构建、独立的挑战，且通常基于某种善意的基础。”

Goldsmith is a law professor at Harvard University and a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration. Bauer was White House counsel for President Barack Obama. They are students of Article II of the Constitution, which sets out the powers of the president.

戈德史密斯是哈佛大学法学教授，曾任小布什政府司法部官员。鲍尔是奥巴马总统的白宫顾问。他们是宪法第二条的研究者，该条款规定了总统的权力。

Trump’s executive orders have some features suggesting that they mean to test legal theories in the Supreme Court, they wrote. “But in the aggregate,” they added, “they seem more like pieces of a program, in the form of law defiance, for a mini-constitutional convention to ‘amend’ Article II across a broad front.”

他们写道，特朗普的行政命令有一些特点，表明其意在最高法院检验法律理论。他们还说，“但总体看来，它们更像是一个计划的组成部分，以违抗法律的形式，试图通过一个小型宪法会议，在广泛范围内‘修正’宪法第二条。”