最高法院新会期开幕：聚焦总统权力与文化战争

From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Kitroof. This is The Daily. The Supreme Court began a new term this week, one where the justices will weigh in on issues of presidential power and on the most consequential culture war battles in America.

我是《纽约时报》的娜塔莉·基特罗夫，这里是《每日》。 本周，最高法院 (Supreme Court: 美国联邦司法体系的最高机构) 开启了一个新会期，大法官们将权衡总统权力问题以及美国最重大的文化战争。

In one of the first cases, the court considered whether to strike down a ban on conversion therapy, the controversial practice aimed at changing someone's sexual orientation.

在首批案件之一中，法院审议了是否废除一项针对转化疗法 (Conversion Therapy: 一种旨在改变个人性取向或性别认同的有争议性做法) 的禁令。

Today, my colleague Ann Marramo walks us through that case. It's Thursday, October 9th. Ann, welcome to The Daily. First time on the show as our new Supreme Court correspondent.

今天，我的同事安·马拉莫将带领我们了解这个案件。今天是10月9日，星期四。 安，欢迎来到《每日》。这是你作为我们新的最高法院记者首次亮相节目。

Ann: Thank you. I'm really happy to be here. Natalie: I'm really excited to talk to you because we are at the start of a new Supreme Court term and it's one I think a lot of us have been anticipating and waiting for because the court is going to be ruling on a number of big questions.

安：谢谢，我很高兴来到这里。 娜塔莉：我非常高兴能和你交谈，因为我们正处于最高法院新会期的开端，我认为很多人都在期待这个会期，因为法院将就许多重大问题作出裁决。

Natalie: We know that there are big questions related to the Trump administration among all these other cases on the docket. So I want to ask how you weigh the importance of the cases that are before the court right now.

娜塔莉：我们知道，除了所有这些已排上议程的案件外，还有许多与特朗普政府相关的重大问题。所以我想问你，你如何衡量目前摆在法院面前的这些案件的重要性？

Ann: Yeah. Yeah. So, as you said, it's a huge term. The Trump administration's agenda is really going to dominate a lot of the docket, right? Already, we have in November the case about Trump's sweeping tariffs.

安：是的，正如你所说，这是一个非常重要的会期。特朗普政府的议程确实将占据大部分案件日程，对吧？我们已经看到，11月将审理关于特朗普全面关税的案件。

Ann: They're going to look at whether the president has the power to fire independent government regulators who are supposed to be protected by Congress. And then in January, they're going to look at does the president have the authority to fire a governor of the independent Federal Reserve Board. Right?

安：他们将审视总统是否有权解雇本应受国会保护的独立政府监管机构官员。然后在一月份，他们将审视总统是否有权解雇独立的联邦储备委员会 (Federal Reserve Board: 美国的中央银行系统) 理事。对吧？

Ann: So, some pretty big questions about what Trump can and can't do. Natalie: Exactly. But there are also all of these other cases that will have critical impact on the lives of Americans that are as important and that we're also watching this term.

安：所以，关于特朗普能做什么不能做什么，有一些相当大的问题。 娜塔莉：没错。但还有所有其他将对美国人生活产生关键影响的案件，它们同样重要，我们也在本会期关注它们。

Natalie: The court's going to look at the rights of transgender athletes to participate in girls and women's sports, the religious rights of prisoners, and the court wasted no time in its first week back on the bench turning to one of these big culture war issues and taking up the issue of whether or not states can ban conversion therapy for minors.

娜塔莉：法院将审视跨性别运动员参与女子体育运动的权利、囚犯的宗教权利，并且法院在其复工的第一周就迅速着手处理其中一个重大的文化战争问题，即各州是否可以禁止对未成年人进行转化疗法。

转化疗法：一个被“复活”的争议议题

Natalie: Okay. So tell me about this case that we saw this week. Because I think for a lot of us that are on the sidelines here, it seemed as though this case had kind of revived an issue that had been discredited a long time ago.

娜塔莉：好的。那么请告诉我我们这周看到的这个案件。因为我认为对我们这些旁观者来说，这个案件似乎重新激活了一个很久以前就被否定了的问题。

Natalie: Conversion therapy. It's something that feels a little like it's from another era and now it's before the court. That's right.

娜塔莉：转化疗法。这感觉有点像来自另一个时代的东西，现在却摆在了法院面前。没错。

Ann: So starting in about the 1990s, major medical associations had come to this consensus that counseling that aimed to change the sexual orientation of gay teenagers or gender identity of transgendered teens was really viewed as harmful and widely rejected.

安：所以从大约1990年代开始，主要的医学协会达成共识，认为旨在改变同性恋青少年性取向或跨性别青少年性别认同的咨询被认为是真正有害且被广泛拒绝的。

Ann: A lot of state legislators started to pass laws between 2012 and 2024 to place restrictions on this type of therapy for minors. So this case arose out of Colorado which is one of more than 20 states with these similar laws.

安：许多州的立法者在2012年至2024年间开始通过法律，对针对未成年人的这类疗法施加限制。因此，这个案件起源于科罗拉多州，该州是拥有类似法律的20多个州之一。

Natalie: And what exactly did these laws say broadly speaking? Ann: Yes. So Colorado's law and the laws like it basically say that any practice or treatment that tries to change a minor's gender expression or eliminate their attractions to people of the same sex are ineffective and harmful and cannot be practiced in those states.

娜塔莉：广义上说，这些法律具体说了什么？ 安：是的。所以科罗拉多州的法律以及类似法律基本上规定，任何试图改变未成年人性表达或消除他们对同性吸引力的做法或治疗都是无效和有害的，不能在这些州进行。

Natalie: And so tell me about the challenge to that law in Colorado. What's the case there? Ann: So Colorado's law was passed back in 2019. This lawsuit was not filed until 2022 by Kaye Childs. She practices in a small bungalow office in Colorado Springs downtown right near Colorado.

娜塔莉：那么告诉我，科罗拉多州这项法律面临的挑战是什么？那里的案件情况如何？ 安：科罗拉多州的法律于2019年通过。直到2022年，凯·查尔兹 (Kaye Childs) 才提起这项诉讼。她在科罗拉多斯普林斯市中心的一个小平房办公室执业，就在科罗拉多附近。

Ann: She said that she wants to have voluntary conversations with young people who want to try to live a life consistent with their faith. She gets some referrals through churches and she says that Colorado's law is interfering with those conversations in violation of her free speech rights.

安：她说她希望与那些想要过符合自己信仰生活的年轻人进行自愿对话。她通过教堂获得了一些推荐，她表示科罗拉多州的法律干涉了这些对话，侵犯了她的言论自由权。

Natalie: And just to be clear, has she actually gotten in trouble for doing this? Ann: No. Colorado's law has never been enforced against anyone. It includes fines of up to $5,000. Therapists can lose their licenses, but she has never been prosecuted for this or charged.

娜塔莉：澄清一下，她实际上是否因此惹上麻烦了？ 安：没有。科罗拉多州的法律从未对任何人执行过。它包括高达5000美元的罚款。治疗师可能会失去执照，但她从未因此被起诉或指控。

Ann: But she says that her speech is being chilled because she's concerned about crossing that line. And so she's being represented by a real powerhouse at the Supreme Court. This is the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF: 一个总部位于亚利桑那州的基督教保守派法律事务所和倡导团体), an Arizona-based Christian conservative law firm and advocacy group that's been behind a lot of cases at the court in recent years.

安：但她说她的言论受到了压制，因为她担心越过那条界限。因此，她由最高法院的一个真正强大的机构代表。这就是捍卫自由联盟 (Alliance Defending Freedom: 一个总部位于亚利桑那州的基督教保守派法律事务所和倡导团体)，它在近年来的许多法院案件中都发挥了作用。

Ann: In 2018, the court ruled in favor of one of their clients, Jack Phillips, who is a baker in Colorado, who had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. And then in 2023, the justices also sided with ADF on another case from Colorado.

安：2018年，法院裁定支持他们的一位客户，科罗拉多州的面包师杰克·菲利普斯，他曾拒绝为一对同性恋伴侣制作婚礼蛋糕。随后在2023年，大法官们也在另一起来自科罗拉多州的案件中支持了ADF。

Ann: This was a web designer who had refused to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. And in each of these cases, these are individuals saying that their First Amendment (First Amendment: 美国宪法修正案，保障言论自由、宗教自由等基本权利) rights are being violated.

安：这是一个拒绝为同性伴侣制作婚礼网站的网页设计师。在这些案件中，这些个人都声称他们的第一修正案 (First Amendment: 美国宪法修正案，保障言论自由、宗教自由等基本权利) 权利受到了侵犯。

Natalie: Yes. Just like child in the conversion therapy case. Ann: Okay. So, walk us through the oral arguments in this case involving childs. I also listen to them. But what stood out to you about how the arguments unfolded?

娜塔莉：是的。就像转化疗法案件中的小孩一样。 安：好的。那么，请向我们介绍一下涉及查尔兹的这个案件的口头辩论。我也听了。但辩论的展开方式，有哪些地方让你印象深刻？

口头辩论：言论与行为的界定

Mr. Campbell: We will hear argument first this morning in case 24539, Childs versus Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court.

坎贝尔先生：今天上午，我们将首先审理第24539号案件，查尔兹诉萨拉萨尔案。谢谢首席大法官阁下，并请法庭允许。

Ann: So, the argument began with the lawyer from Alliance Defending Freedom representing the therapist. Colorado forbids counselors like Kaye Childs from helping minors pursue state disfavored goals on issues of gender and sexuality.

安：所以，辩论开始时，捍卫自由联盟的律师代表治疗师发言。科罗拉多州禁止像凯·查尔兹这样的咨询师帮助未成年人追求该州在性别和性问题上不赞成的目标。

Ann: He said Colorado can't turn this therapist into what he said is a mouthpiece for the government by forcing her to have the types of conversations the state thinks are appropriate. That state should not manipulate private conversations between licensed professionals and clients.

安：他说科罗拉多州不能通过强迫这位治疗师进行该州认为合适的对话，而将她变成他所说的政府的“传声筒”。国家不应该操纵持证专业人士和客户之间的私人对话。

Ann: He said over and over again that the state is censoring her speech violating her ability to work with patients who come to her voluntarily to get the type of treatment they need.

安：他一再表示，州政府正在审查她的言论，侵犯了她与自愿寻求所需治疗的患者合作的能力。

Mr. Campbell: Because the First Amendment depends on the difference between speech and conduct, not on the... Ann: So the therapist lawyer tried to make a really clear distinction between the voluntary talk therapy that she wants to practice and traditional conduct doctors administering pills or delivering some sort of specific medical treatment.

坎贝尔先生：因为第一修正案取决于言论与行为之间的区别，而不是…… 安：所以治疗师的律师试图在查尔兹想要进行的自愿谈话疗法与传统医生开药或提供某种特定医疗治疗的行为之间做出非常明确的区分。

Mr. Campbell: Medicine. So if we were in the medical context and there was something like administering drugs, performing procedures, conducting examinations, that would take it outside of the arguments we're making.

坎贝尔先生：医学。所以如果我们处于医疗背景下，如果涉及到给药、进行手术、进行检查等，那将超出我们正在提出的论点范围。

Natalie: Got it. So in this lawyer's view, what he's saying is there's a difference between being a doctor and handing someone pills and being a therapist and just talking to a patient. Exactly.

娜塔莉：明白了。所以在这位律师看来，他认为医生开药和治疗师只是与病人交谈之间存在区别。没错。

Ann: And that's a key distinction because the First Amendment protects speech and the government can't infringe on the speech of individuals and the court has said that professionals don't lose that right to free speech just because they're operating in the professional context.

安：这是一个关键区别，因为第一修正案保护言论自由，政府不能侵犯个人的言论自由，法院也曾表示，专业人士不会仅仅因为他们在专业领域工作而失去言论自由的权利。

Ann: So if the court determines that this is just aimed at speech, then the state can't regulate that in a way that discriminates based on viewpoint. In contrast to states having the power to regulate medical practice to ensure patients are protected from substandard care.

安：因此，如果法院认定这仅仅是针对言论，那么州政府就不能以基于观点歧视的方式进行监管。这与州政府有权监管医疗实践以确保患者免受不合格护理的权力形成对比。

大法官的回应：医疗介入与言论自由的边界

Natalie: So let's talk about how the justices respond to that argument. What did you hear there? Ann: I thought the most push back on the therapist lawyer came from two of the liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.

娜塔莉：那么我们来谈谈大法官们如何回应这一论点。你听到了什么？ 安：我认为对治疗师律师最大的反驳来自两位自由派大法官，索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官。

Justice Jackson: I guess it seems very odd that you could have two scenarios where you have two licensed professionals both attempting to provide treatment to an individual say for the same issue that you know the person says I'd like to live consistently with my biological sex. I feel that I'm not doing that. I'd like your help.

杰克逊大法官：我想，这看起来很奇怪，你可能有两种情况：两位持证专业人士都试图为同一个人提供治疗，比如说针对同一个问题，这个人说“我想过与我的生理性别一致的生活。我感觉我没有做到。我需要你的帮助。”

Justice Jackson: Medical professional A treats that quote unquote condition with medication. Medical professional B treats that condition with talk therapy. Justice Jackson in particular said she was having trouble distinguishing speech as a tool here to deliver the therapy and said what's the difference between that kind of tool and other tools doctors use?

杰克逊大法官：医疗专业人员A用药物治疗这种“所谓”的状况。医疗专业人员B用谈话疗法治疗这种状况。杰克逊大法官特别指出，她难以区分言语作为这里提供疗法的工具，并问这种工具与其他医生使用的工具有何不同？

Mr. Campbell: And I guess under your theory those two scenarios are sufficiently different from a constitutional perspective that one could be allowed and the other not. Justice Jackson: I think that's potentially correct because the First Amendment would apply to the speech.

坎贝尔先生：我想根据你的理论，这两种情况从宪法角度来看足够不同，一种可以被允许，另一种则不行。 杰克逊大法官：我认为这可能是正确的，因为第一修正案将适用于言论。

Mr. Campbell: Just because words are being used to accomplish the therapy in one scenario and not the other. Justice Jackson: No, because only words are being used in the one scenario. Again, if there is a combination of words and conduct, I think that takes us into a different into a different realm.

坎贝尔先生：仅仅因为在一种情况下使用语言来完成治疗，而在另一种情况下不使用。 杰克逊大法官：不，因为在一种情况下只使用了语言。再次强调，如果存在语言和行为的结合，我认为那将我们带入一个不同的领域。

Ann: But one of the what she's saying here is kind of like, are you really arguing that therapists aren't health care professionals? Is that the claim you're trying to make that the therapy itself isn't, you know, in and of itself a medical intervention perspective?

安：但她在这里说的有点像，“你真的在争辩治疗师不是医疗保健专业人员吗？你是否试图声称治疗本身，你知道，它本身就不是一种医疗干预？”

Justice Jackson: I'm wondering why this regulation at issue here isn't really just the functional equivalent of Scrametti. Ann: And she brought up that just a few months ago, the court's conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law barring certain medical treatments for transgender young people that the state had deemed unsafe.

杰克逊大法官：我只是想知道，这里涉及的这项法规，为什么不只是斯克拉梅蒂案的功能等价物呢？ 安：她提到，就在几个月前，法院的保守派多数派维持了田纳西州一项禁止对跨性别青少年进行某些医疗治疗的法律，该州认为这些治疗不安全。

Ann: And she really pressed the question of how is it possible for us to say those types of laws are okay but in this case Colorado can't ban conversion therapy that it thinks is harmful.

安：她确实追问，我们怎么可能说那些类型的法律是允许的，但在本案中，科罗拉多州却不能禁止它认为有害的转化疗法。

Mr. Campbell: Well, from a very broad perspective, there shouldn't be equivalence because obviously we have a First Amendment. So when you have... Ann: The key difference he says is that Tennessee's law was dealing with medication with drugs. Colorado's law is dealing with the First Amendment and those speech concerns. So, two different constitutional principles at play.

坎贝尔先生：嗯，从一个非常宽泛的角度来看，不应该存在等同性，因为我们显然有第一修正案。所以当你有…… 安：他说关键的区别在于田纳西州的法律处理的是药物治疗。科罗拉多州的法律处理的是第一修正案和言论自由的担忧。因此，涉及两种不同的宪法原则。

Natalie: You know, it seems plausible to me that legally these two things might be treated distinctly. I mean, counseling obviously can be a hugely important intervention that has a big impact on someone's mental health, but it seems plausible that it would be seen differently than taking medication or doing an operation.

娜塔莉：你知道，在我看来，从法律上讲，这两件事可能被区别对待是合理的。我的意思是，咨询显然是一种非常重要的干预，对某人的心理健康有很大影响，但它被视为与服药或手术不同，似乎也是合理的。

Natalie: And you can see a slippery slope kind of concern here where if you start, you know, regulating the things that therapists say to their patient, there could be a lot of problems down the line, right?

娜塔莉：你在这里可以看到一种“滑坡效应”式的担忧，如果你开始，你知道，规范治疗师对病人说的话，那么将来可能会出现很多问题，对吧？

Ann: And the lawyer for the therapist said, "Yet that would allow states to silence all kinds of speech in the counseling room, such as allowing Colorado to bar this type of treatment would open the door to laws barring discussion of other things like divorce or abortion."

安：治疗师的律师说：“然而，那将允许各州压制咨询室内的各种言论，例如，允许科罗拉多州禁止这种治疗将为禁止讨论离婚或堕胎等其他事宜的法律打开大门。”

Mr. Campbell: Here. Colorado can't satisfy any level of heightened scrutiny. Ann: So, the free speech aspect of the debate was a big part of the argument on Tuesday. And if the court decides that this type of law is infringing on free speech, it could send it back to the lower courts.

坎贝尔先生：这里。科罗拉多州无法满足任何程度的加强审查 (Heightened Scrutiny: 一种司法审查标准，政府需证明法律为实现重要政府利益而量身定制)。 安：所以，言论自由是周二辩论的一个重要部分。如果法院裁定这种法律侵犯了言论自由，它可能会将其发回下级法院。

Ann: And then the key test will be for the state to justify its law and say the harm that comes from conversion therapy justifies this infringement on speech and that the law is designed narrowly enough to make it worthwhile.

安：然后，关键的考验将是州政府证明其法律的合理性，并说明转化疗法造成的危害证明了对言论自由的这种侵犯是正当的，并且该法律的设计足够严格，使其具有价值。

Ann: And Colorado can't prove harm because it hasn't cited a study focusing on what's at issue here. Voluntary speech between a licensed professional and a minor. So with this in mind, the petitioner's lawyer then turns to the question of harm.

安：科罗拉多州无法证明危害，因为它没有引用一项专注于本案核心问题的研究：持证专业人士与未成年人之间的自愿对话。因此，考虑到这一点，请愿人律师随后转向了危害问题。

Mr. Campbell: Colorado certainly cites studies, but those studies suffer from significant flaws. The main... Ann: The therapist lawyer said the studies are weak and biased. They treat voluntary conversations the same as shock therapy.

坎贝尔先生：科罗拉多州确实引用了研究，但这些研究存在重大缺陷。主要的…… 安：治疗师的律师说这些研究是薄弱且有偏见的。它们将自愿对话与电击疗法同等对待。

Ann: He said that the studies that Colorado is relying on don't address the type of voluntary talk therapy that she wants to provide. He said there's no evidence specifically about this type of therapy that it's harmful. She should be able to practice it with her clients.

安：他说科罗拉多州所依赖的研究并未涉及她希望提供的那种自愿谈话疗法。他说没有具体证据表明这种疗法有害。她应该能够向她的客户提供这种服务。

Natalie: And just to ask, is that true? There are certainly people, right, who have said this kind of therapy ruined their lives or caused severe trauma.

娜塔莉：顺便问一下，这是真的吗？肯定有人说过这种疗法毁了他们的生活或造成了严重的创伤，对吧？

Ann: Well, major medical associations like the American Medical Association (AMA: 美国最大的医生协会) and the American Psychological Association (APA: 美国最大的心理学专业组织) still say that this is harmful. That conversations that try to change what they say is somebody's innate identity or sexual orientation are harmful to young people.

安：嗯，像美国医学会 (American Medical Association: 美国最大的医生协会) 和美国心理学会 (American Psychological Association: 美国最大的心理学专业组织) 这样的主要医学协会仍然认为这种做法是有害的。他们认为，试图改变一个人先天身份或性取向的对话对年轻人是有害的。

Ann: But there is an emerging debate especially around gender identity where therapists are reconsidering the possible benefits of this type of therapy.

安：但现在出现了一场新的辩论，尤其是在性别认同方面，治疗师们正在重新考虑这种疗法的潜在益处。

Mr. Campbell: Scrutiny. Thank you, Council. Justice Thomas. Ann: Just to summarize, the lawyers for the therapist have basically said, "Look, this case turns on this key issue of whether this kind of therapy is speech or medical care."

坎贝尔先生：审查。谢谢各位律师。托马斯大法官。 安：总而言之，治疗师的律师们基本上说：“看，这个案件的关键在于这种疗法是言论还是医疗护理。”

Ann: "And we say it's speech. But even if you don't buy our argument that it's speech, even if you think it's medical care, well, there's not enough evidence to say that the medical care is harmful, that this is causing harm, right?"

安：“我们认为这是言论。但即使你不同意我们关于这是言论的论点，即使你认为这是医疗护理，嗯，也没有足够的证据表明这种医疗护理是有害的，即它正在造成伤害，对吧？”

Ann: And despite some tough questions from Justice Sodtomayor and Justice Jackson, most of the court seemed pretty receptive to the therapist lawyers claims. Some of them didn't even ask questions like Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

安：尽管索托马约尔大法官和杰克逊大法官提出了一些尖锐的问题，但法院的大多数成员似乎对治疗师律师的主张相当接受。其中一些人甚至没有提问，比如布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官。

Ann: But then it was time for Colorado's lawyer to stand up and try to make her case and to try to convince them otherwise. Natalie: We'll be right back.

安：但随后轮到科罗拉多州的律师站起来，试图陈述她的论点，并试图说服他们改变想法。 娜塔莉：我们马上回来。

科罗拉多州的论点：医疗监管与实际危害

Natalie: So, the Colorado lawyer steps up, as you said, to make her case to these justices who had overall been quite receptive to the therapist's argument. Walk us through what that lawyer said.

娜塔莉：所以，正如你所说，科罗拉多州的律师站出来向那些总体上对治疗师论点相当接受的大法官陈述她的案件。请告诉我们那位律师说了什么。

Colorado Solicitor General: Mr. Chief Justice, and may I please the court? Yes, it's two-pronged. This is the Solicitor General (Solicitor General: 代表政府在美国最高法院出庭的首席律师) of Colorado.

科罗拉多州首席检察官：首席大法官阁下，请允许我发言？是的，这有两方面。我是科罗拉多州的首席检察官 (Solicitor General: 代表政府在美国最高法院出庭的首席律师)。

Colorado Solicitor General: Throughout its history, this court has recognized that state power is at its apex when it regulates to ensure safety in the health care professions. Colorado's law lies at the bullseye center of this protection.

科罗拉多州首席检察官：纵观历史，本法院一直承认，当州政府进行监管以确保医疗保健行业的安全时，其权力达到顶峰。科罗拉多州的法律正处于这种保护的核心。

Ann: She says fundamentally this is not speech. The state cannot lose its power to regulate the very professionals that it licenses just because they are using words.

安：她说，从根本上讲，这不是言论。州政府不能仅仅因为这些专业人士使用语言，就失去监管它所许可的专业人士的权力。

Colorado Solicitor General: These are licensed providers. It's conduct. It's treatment. It's a clinical conversation. And a state cannot be required to let its vulnerable young people waste their time and money on an ineffective harmful treatment just because that treatment is delivered through words.

科罗拉多州首席检察官：这些是持证提供者。这是行为。这是治疗。这是一次临床对话。一个州不能被要求让其脆弱的年轻人将时间和金钱浪费在一种无效有害的治疗上，仅仅因为这种治疗是通过言语进行的。

Ann: And then she says there is real harm. There's lots of evidence from these major medical associations. The harms from conversion therapy come from when you tell a young person, you can change this innate thing about yourself and they try and they try and they fail and then they have shame and they're miserable and then it ruins.

安：然后她说，确实存在真实的危害。这些主要医学协会提供了大量证据。转化疗法造成的危害来自于当你告诉一个年轻人，你可以改变自己与生俱来的某些特质，他们尝试、再尝试，却失败了，然后他们感到羞耻，感到痛苦，然后这一切都毁了。

Ann: She's basically disagreeing with the two main things that the therapist lawyer says. She says this isn't speech, it's medical care. And by the way, it does cause harm.

安：她基本上不同意治疗师律师说的两件主要事情。她说这不是言论，而是医疗护理。而且顺便说一句，它确实会造成伤害。

Natalie: Right. And she says that's why so many other states have also passed laws barring conversion therapy. And walk us through how the justices respond to that because it sounds like she's just saying the inverse of what they heard.

娜塔莉：没错。她说这就是为什么其他许多州也通过了禁止转化疗法的法律。请告诉我们大法官们是如何回应的，因为听起来她只是在说他们之前听到的观点的反面。

大法官的质疑：法律的范围与医学共识的可靠性

Justice Thomas: Right. If petitioner were a non-therapist, would this be protected speech? Um, well, so I wanted to mention... Ann: So Justice Thomas said, "Well, what about other people who aren't licensed therapists? Are they allowed to practice conversion therapy?"

托马斯大法官：对。如果请愿人不是治疗师，这会是受保护的言论吗？嗯，我想提一下…… 安：所以托马斯大法官说：“那么，那些不是持证治疗师的人呢？他们被允许进行转化疗法吗？”

Colorado Solicitor General: But the law exempts religious ministers and ministries from this. And there was also a group of people called life coaches who could perform this therapy.

科罗拉多州首席检察官：但这项法律豁免了宗教牧师和宗教组织。还有一群被称为“人生导师”的人也可以进行这种疗法。

Ann: And in response, the lawyer from Colorado says this law is narrow. She says that there's an exemption for religious ministries. They're not trying to violate anybody's free speech rights.

安：作为回应，科罗拉多州的律师表示这项法律是狭窄的。她说宗教机构有豁免权。他们不是在试图侵犯任何人的言论自由权。

Colorado Solicitor General: That this is specifically about somebody who has a license from the state and that they get to set the standard for what that practice looks like. Justice Thomas: So what if someone who was happened to be devoutly religious and actually relied more on the minister than the therapist? It seemed that that person would be equally dangerous.

科罗拉多州首席检察官：这特别关乎那些拥有州政府颁发执照的人，并且他们可以设定这种实践的标准。 托马斯大法官：那么，如果有人恰好是虔诚的宗教信徒，并且实际上更依赖牧师而不是治疗师呢？看起来那个人同样危险。

Ann: He asked what about religious ministries and life coaches? If this is such a dangerous practice, why is it not banned for those types of individuals? Colorado Solicitor General: Dangerous. Well, I think that that would be a personal choice that they were making to rely on their religious minister. It wouldn't be a representation from the state.

安：他问道，宗教机构和人生导师呢？如果这是一种如此危险的做法，为什么不禁止这些人从事这种行为呢？ 科罗拉多州首席检察官：危险。嗯，我认为那将是他们个人选择去依赖他们的宗教牧师。那不会是来自州的代表。

Colorado Solicitor General: If you go to a life coach or you go to someone else, they're not licensed by the state. You're not expecting them to be complying with standards of care. You have a different expectation.

科罗拉多州首席检察官：如果你去找人生导师或其他人，他们没有获得州的许可。你不会期望他们遵守护理标准。你会有不同的期望。

Natalie: You know, I found this exchange really interesting because on the one hand, the lawyer for Colorado makes the law seem narrow in the sense that the harm of this to people who want to seek out this kind of conversion therapy is actually limited because they can get it if they want it, just not from a therapist.

娜塔莉：你知道，我发现这次交流非常有趣，因为一方面，科罗拉多州的律师让这项法律显得很狭窄，因为对于那些想要寻求这种转化疗法的人来说，其危害实际上是有限的，因为他们如果想要，仍然可以得到，只是不能从治疗师那里获得。

Natalie: But on the other hand, the justices still have to deal with that fundamental question of whether it infringes on the speech of the people it does apply to, right? And that's what we heard from some of the other justices who questioned Colorado's lawyer.

娜塔莉：但另一方面，大法官们仍然必须处理一个根本问题，即它是否侵犯了它所适用人群的言论自由，对吧？这就是我们从其他一些质疑科罗拉多州律师的大法官那里听到的。

Justice Alo: I don't really see a difference between the argument that you're making now and the argument that I thought we rejected in NIFla. Ann: So, Justice Alo had very pointed questions for the Colorado attorney.

阿利托大法官：我实在看不出你现在提出的论点与我认为我们在NIFla案中驳回的论点有何区别。 安：所以，阿利托大法官对科罗拉多州的律师提出了非常尖锐的问题。

Justice Alo: Let me put that aside and ask about your interpretation of the statute. And he did that by using a hypothetical. Suppose an adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist and says he's attracted to other males but feels uneasy and guilty about those feelings and he wants the therapist's help so he will feel comfortable.

阿利托大法官：让我把那个放在一边，问问你对法规的解释。他通过一个假设来做到这一点。假设一个青春期男孩来到一位持证治疗师那里，说他被其他男性吸引，但对这些感受感到不安和内疚，他希望治疗师帮助他，让他感到舒服。

Ann: He said if a young person comes to a doctor and says that I identify as gay, the law allows the therapist to help that person affirm their sexual orientation.

安：他说，如果一个年轻人来找医生说他认同自己是同性恋，法律允许治疗师帮助那个人确认他们的性取向。

Justice Alo: The other situation is a similar adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist, says he's attracted to other males, and he wants to end or lessen them, and asks for the therapist's help in doing so.

阿利托大法官：另一种情况是，一个类似的青春期男孩来到一位持证治疗师那里，说他被其他男性吸引，他想结束或减轻这些感受，并寻求治疗师的帮助来做到这一点。

Ann: If a different teenager comes to a doctor and says, "I identify as gay." The doctor is not allowed to help that teenager try to become straight. It seems to me your statute dictates opposite results in those two situations based on the viewpoint expressed, one viewpoint.

安：如果另一个青少年来找医生说：“我认同自己是同性恋。”医生不允许帮助那个青少年尝试变成异性恋。在我看来，你的法规在这两种情况下根据表达的观点，即一种观点，规定了相反的结果。

Natalie: So the law allows you to counsel in one direction but not the other. And Justice Alo seemed to be making the point that this is sort of a classic type of law that the First Amendment prohibits.

娜塔莉：所以法律允许你朝一个方向提供咨询，但不能朝另一个方向。阿利托大法官似乎想说明，这是一种第一修正案所禁止的典型法律。

Ann: Basically, Alito's point here is the therapist in this case can tell a patient to lean into their gay identity, but can't tell them to change it. And that's discriminating based on the point of view of the speech in question, which the government can't do, right?

安：基本上，阿利托在这里的观点是，本案中的治疗师可以告诉病人接受他们的同性恋身份，但不能告诉他们改变它。而这是基于所涉言论的观点进行歧视，政府不能这样做，对吧？

Ann: When the government does that, it's very suspect and maybe in violation of the First Amendment. And that led to one of the most surprising and really telling moments of the argument.

安：当政府这样做时，这是非常可疑的，并且可能违反了第一修正案。这导致了辩论中最令人惊讶和真正具有启发性的时刻之一。

Justice Kagan: I guess I had the same kind of question that Justice Alto had. I mean, if we assume, for example, Ann: Liberal justice Elena Kagan kind of leaned into Justice Alto's question and said, you know, I have the same question.

卡根大法官：我想我也有和阿利托大法官一样的问题。我的意思是，如果我们假设，例如， 安：自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根有点认同阿利托大法官的问题，并说，你知道，我也有同样的问题。

Justice Kagan: If a doctor says, I know you identify as gay and I'm going to help you accept that. And another doctor says, I know you identify as gay and I'm going to help you to change that. And one of those is permissible and the other is not. That seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination.

卡根大法官：如果一个医生说，“我知道你认同自己是同性恋，我会帮你接受这一点。”而另一个医生说，“我知道你认同自己是同性恋，我会帮你改变这一点。”其中一种是允许的，另一种则不允许。这似乎是我们通常理解的“观点歧视”。

Ann: And it does seem like a classic example of discrimination by government officials based on the viewpoint being expressed that would normally be subject to a high level of judicial review.

安：这确实看起来是政府官员基于所表达观点进行歧视的经典案例，这种歧视通常会受到高度的司法审查。

Ann: And in response to Justice Kagan, Colorado's lawyer says, "I don't disagree with that, Justice Kagan, and that's why medical treatment has to be treated differently."

安：而为了回应卡根大法官，科罗拉多州的律师说：“卡根大法官，我对此不持异议，这就是为什么医疗治疗必须区别对待的原因。”

Colorado Solicitor General: You're right. We are picking sides in this debate because one type of treatment is harmful and that's why speech is different from treatment. The state is trying to protect young people from a harmful practice. And so, we are saying that you're not allowed to practice conversion therapy. That's by design.

科罗拉多州首席检察官：你说得对。我们在这场辩论中确实选择了立场，因为一种治疗方法是有害的，这就是为什么言论与治疗不同。州政府正努力保护年轻人免受有害行为的侵害。因此，我们说你们不允许进行转化疗法。这是特意设计的。

Natalie: And what about the Colorado lawyer's argument that this care does cause harm? How do the justices deal with that? Ann: Right. So there was another pointed question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett who is often the swing vote and in the majority.

娜塔莉：那么科罗拉多州律师关于这种护理确实造成伤害的论点呢？大法官们如何处理这个问题？ 安：没错。艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官也提出了另一个尖锐的问题，她通常是摇摆票，并且属于多数派。

Justice Barrett: What is your best evidence on this record that this kind of talk therapy by a licensed professional, licensed therapist to minors causes harm? Colorado Solicitor General: Sure. I would direct.

巴雷特大法官：在这个记录中，你有什么最好的证据表明这种由持证专业人士、持证治疗师对未成年人进行的谈话疗法会造成伤害？ 科罗拉多州首席检察官：当然。我会指示。

Ann: And she said, "You know, what is your best answer to how this actually causes harm?" Colorado Solicitor General: The Green study looked at 34,000 13 to 25 year olds who had gone through conversion therapy and after controlling for other factors, found there was a two times rate of attempted suicides among that group.

安：她说：“你知道，关于这到底是如何造成伤害的，你最好的答案是什么？” 科罗拉多州首席检察官：格林研究调查了34,000名13至25岁曾接受转化疗法的人，在控制其他因素后，发现该群体中的自杀未遂率是其他群体的两倍。

Ann: And the Colorado lawyer again pointed to major medical associations and studies over many years, saying that this can lead to increased risk for depression and suicide and said there's real harm here for young people.

安：科罗拉多州律师再次指出多年来主要医学协会的研究和报告，称这可能导致抑郁症和自杀风险增加，并表示这对年轻人造成了真正的伤害。

Justice Alo: Justice, your argument depends very heavily on the standard of care which I take it is defined by the medical consensus. Is that correct? Ann: And even as she's talking about all of these studies, there is skepticism from conservative justices like Samuel Alo.

阿利托大法官：大法官阁下，你的论点在很大程度上依赖于护理标准，我理解这护理标准是由医学共识定义的。是这样吗？ 安：即使她谈论所有这些研究，保守派大法官如塞缪尔·阿利托也表示怀疑。

Justice Alo: But have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized, has been taken over by ideology? Who asked pointedly, can medical consensus be wrong?

阿利托大法官：但是否曾经有医学共识被政治化、被意识形态所左右的时候？他尖锐地问道，医学共识会出错吗？

Justice Alo: Was there once was there a time when many medical professionals thought that certain people should not be permitted to procreate because they had low IQs? Ann: So, he brings up a time in the 1920s when medical professionals thought that certain people should not be permitted to procreate.

阿利托大法官：是否曾几何时，许多医学专业人士认为某些人因为智商低而不应该被允许生育？ 安：所以，他提到了20世纪20年代，当时医学专业人士认为某些人不应该被允许生育。

Colorado Solicitor General: Um, we have no facts about that in this case, but I wouldn't disagree that that's possible. And I think that's a really... Justice Alo: Isn't it a fact that it's happened in the past?

科罗拉多州首席检察官：嗯，本案中我们没有关于这方面的证据，但我不会否认这可能发生。而且我认为这确实是…… 阿利托大法官：过去发生过这样的事情难道不是事实吗？

Ann: And he quotes from the court's majority opinion back in 1927 which upheld that sterilization program written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, "three generations of idiots are enough."

安：他引用了法院在1927年的多数意见，该意见支持了由奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯大法官撰写的绝育计划，其中写道：“三代白痴已经足够了。”

Justice Alo: Wasn't it better for all the world because three generations of imbeciles are enough. Ann: He's saying look scientific consensus has been wrong before. That suggests it could be wrong again and we shouldn't rest our law on that.

阿利托大法官：难道这对整个世界不是更好吗？因为三代弱智已经足够了。 安：他是在说，看，科学共识以前也曾出错。这暗示它可能再次出错，我们不应该将我们的法律建立在此基础上。

Natalie: Right. Right. And Justice Gorsuch makes the same point that medical consensus in the 1970s said that homosexuality was a mental illness.

娜塔莉：对，对。戈萨奇大法官也提出了同样的观点，即1970年代的医学共识认为同性恋是一种精神疾病。

Justice Gorsuch: What if a state back then passed a law prohibiting talk therapy that affirmed homosexuality? Would that be subject to... Natalie: It's interesting because the things that they're pointing to are really horrifying moments in our legal and scientific history.

戈萨奇大法官：如果当时的某个州通过了一项禁止肯定同性恋的谈话疗法的法律呢？那会受到…… 娜塔莉：这很有趣，因为他们指出的这些事情确实是我们法律和科学史上非常可怕的时刻。

Natalie: I mean, do you think that this line of questioning from the conservatives suggests that the justices that the court doesn't trust scientific consensus anymore?

娜塔莉：我的意思是，你认为保守派的这种提问方式是否暗示大法官们，即法院不再信任科学共识了？

Ann: Well, I think Justice Alo was pretty clear that medical consensus can be very important. He says it's usually very reasonable, but he did point out there have been times when medical consensus has been politicized or colored by ideology.

安：嗯，我认为阿利托大法官非常清楚，医学共识可以非常重要。他说通常非常合理，但他确实指出，医学共识有时会被政治化或被意识形态所影响。

Ann: I do think it's interesting that we're in this moment again where the court is dealing with this intersection of the law and science. We saw this last term when they took on the case involving gender affirming care (Gender Affirming Care: 旨在帮助个体过渡到其认同性别的医疗和社会支持) for minors in Tennessee.

安：我确实觉得很有趣，我们再次处于这样一个时刻，法院正在处理法律和科学的交汇点。我们上个会期就看到了这一点，当时他们审理了田纳西州涉及未成年人性别肯定护理 (Gender Affirming Care: 旨在帮助个体过渡到其认同性别的医疗和社会支持) 的案件。

Ann: And I think that it is going to keep coming back to the court and it's something that they need to wrestle with.

安：而且我认为这个问题会不断回到法院，这是他们需要努力解决的问题。

Ann: Gender dysphoria. Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted.

安：性别烦躁 (Gender Dysphoria: 一个人对其出生时被指定的性别与自身认同的性别之间存在不一致而引起的心理困扰)。谢谢各位律师。案件已提交。

案件走向与文化战争的持续

Natalie: Okay. So given how these oral arguments played out this week, what do you think is going to happen in this case? Ann: I saw two paths emerging from the argument. One, the court could decide to send this back to the lower court and say, "You got it wrong the first time."

娜塔莉：好的。那么，鉴于本周这些口头辩论的展开方式，你认为这个案件会发生什么？ 安：我看到辩论中出现了两条路径。第一，法院可能决定将此案发回下级法院，并说：“你们第一次就错了。”

Ann: "This is infringing on free speech and you have to apply a higher level of scrutiny to the law and see if it's really justified." The other would be the court just saying that it's unconstitutional and striking it down on its own.

安：“这侵犯了言论自由，你们必须对法律适用更高水平的审查，看看它是否真的合理。”另一种可能是法院直接宣布其违宪并自行废除。

Ann: I mean, I think part of the equation will be does Justice Kagan or even one of the other liberals join with the majority? And in that case, I could see them sending it back to the lower court.

安：我的意思是，我认为其中一部分将是卡根大法官，甚至其他自由派大法官之一是否会加入多数派？在这种情况下，我可以看到他们将其发回下级法院。

Natalie: And from the way that you've described these arguments, it does seem clear that this case is actually very nuanced and there were plenty of issues with the law that could be debated on their legal merits.

娜塔莉：从你描述这些论点的方式来看，确实很清楚这个案件实际上非常微妙，法律本身也有很多问题可以在法律层面上进行辩论。

Natalie: And yet, because of the nature of the case, the politicized moment that we're in, and the court's recent history of ruling in favor of a bunch of conservative causes, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say that this will be perceived as the court again pushing forward the conservative culture war agenda.

娜塔莉：然而，由于案件的性质、我们所处的政治化时刻，以及法院最近支持一系列保守派事业的裁决历史，说这将被视为法院再次推动保守派文化战争议程，似乎并非牵强。

Natalie: Both sides I could see, interpreting it that way. And I wonder if you see a world in which conservative legal activists jump on this to push the shift in the legal landscape even further in the direction they want.

娜塔莉：我可以看到双方都会这样解读。我想知道你是否认为保守派法律活动家会抓住这个机会，进一步推动法律格局朝着他们想要的方向转变。

Ann: I think it depends on how the court ends up ruling. I mean if it's a 6 to 3 decision divided along ideological lines, that's certainly a real signal there.

安：我认为这取决于法院最终如何裁决。我的意思是，如果这是一个按意识形态划分的6比3裁决，那无疑是一个明确的信号。

Ann: If one of the liberal justices does join and we get a narrower decision, that would, you know, show that the court is not as ideologically divided, but certainly it fits into the pattern of what we've seen from this court in recent years.

安：如果其中一位自由派大法官加入，并且我们得到一个更窄的判决，那将表明法院的意识形态分歧不那么严重，但它无疑符合我们近年来从这个法院所看到的模式。

Natalie: It was just 5 years ago that the court actually expanded rights for gay and transgender workers, but ever since then, they've been slowly moving in this other direction.

娜塔莉：就在五年前，法院实际上扩大了同性恋和跨性别工作者的权利，但从那时起，他们一直在缓慢地朝着另一个方向发展。

Natalie: As we've talked about the case involving trans care for minors, there's another case last term where the justices said religious families could pull their children from story time in public schools that used books with LGBTQ themed characters.

娜塔莉：正如我们谈到的涉及未成年人跨性别护理的案件，上个会期还有另一个案件，大法官们表示宗教家庭可以从公立学校使用LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer: 女同性恋者、男同性恋者、双性恋者、跨性别者、酷儿) 主题角色的故事时间中带走他们的孩子。

Natalie: And there's questions about whether it could go even further. Will there be a reopening of the gay marriage case? Ann: Wow. So, we're seeing the justices continuously not shy away from these big cultural war issues, and I'm going to be looking to see how they respond to these cases from conservative activists that have the potential to reshape the country.

娜塔莉：而且还有疑问，情况是否会进一步发展。同性婚姻案会重新审理吗？ 安：哇。所以，我们看到大法官们不断地不回避这些重大的文化战争问题，我将关注他们如何回应保守派活动家的这些案件，这些案件有可能重塑这个国家。

Ann: And thanks so much. Natalie: Thank you. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know.

安：非常感谢。 娜莉塔：谢谢你。我们马上回来。以下是您还需要知道的其他内容。

新闻速览：中东和平协议与国内政治分歧

Natalie: Today, Israel and Hamas have reached an agreement for the release of Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, a breakthrough that could be a crucial step toward an end to the two-year war in Gaza.

娜塔莉：今天，以色列和哈马斯已达成协议，以释放以色列人质来交换巴勒斯坦囚犯，这一突破可能成为结束加沙长达两年战争的关键一步。

Natalie: President Trump, who helped broker the deal, said on social media on Wednesday that both sides had agreed to the first phase of the White House's peace plan. He said all Israeli hostages would be released and that Israel would pull back its troops to an agreed upon line.

娜塔莉：促成该协议的特朗普总统周三在社交媒体上表示，双方已同意白宫和平计划的第一阶段。他说所有以色列人质都将获释，并且以色列将撤军至商定好的界线。

President Trump: The world has come together around this deal and that's something I would say that without that wouldn't happen. In an interview on Fox News Wednesday night, Trump said the hostages would probably be returned on Monday and said the deal would bring peace to the whole region.

特朗普总统：全世界都围绕这项协议团结起来，我想说，没有它，这一切就不会发生。在周三晚福克斯新闻的采访中，特朗普表示人质可能会在周一返回，并说这项协议将为整个地区带来和平。

President Trump: You know, many years they talked about peace in the Middle East. This is more than Gaza. This is peace in the Middle East. And it's an incredible thing.

特朗普总统：你知道，多年来他们一直在谈论中东和平。这不仅仅是加沙。这是中东的和平。这是一件不可思议的事情。

Natalie: But many of the specifics of the agreement remained unclear. Trump's announcement came at 7:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday night, 2:00 a.m. Thursday in Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had spoken with Trump and would convene his government on Thursday to sign off on the agreement, but Israel's initial statements didn't mention a troop withdrawal.

娜塔莉：但协议的许多具体细节仍不明确。特朗普的声明是在周三晚上东部时间7点，即以色列时间周四凌晨2点发布的。总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡表示，他已与特朗普通话，并将于周四召开政府会议签署协议，但以色列的初步声明并未提及撤军。

Natalie: Hamas said in a statement that the agreement would lead to the end of the war in Gaza and Israel's withdrawal from the territory. Natalie: And earlier on Wednesday, President Trump said that Governor JB Pritsker of Illinois and Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago should be jailed, writing on social media that they hadn't done enough to protect ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 美国移民及海关执法局) officers.

娜塔莉：哈马斯在一份声明中表示，该协议将导致加沙战争的结束以及以色列从该地区撤军。 娜塔莉：周三早些时候，特朗普总统表示，伊利诺伊州州长JB·普里茨克和芝加哥市长布兰登·约翰逊应该被监禁，他在社交媒体上写道，他们没有采取足够措施保护ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 美国移民及海关执法局) 官员。

Natalie: Both Democrats have opposed Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in the Chicago area and criticized the administration's aggressive immigration raids.

娜塔莉：两位民主党人均反对特朗普在芝加哥地区部署国民警卫队，并批评政府激进的移民突袭行动。

Natalie: Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat, Diana Wyn, and Michelle Bonja. It was edited by Rob Zipco, Devin Taylor, and MJ Davis Lynn with help from Paige Cowit. Contains music by Marian Lozano and was engineered by Chris Wood.

娜塔莉：本期节目由奥利维亚·纳特、黛安娜·温和米歇尔·邦贾制作。由罗布·齐普科、德文·泰勒和MJ·戴维斯·林恩编辑，佩奇·考维特协助。音乐由玛丽安·洛扎诺创作，克里斯·伍德负责音效工程。

Natalie: That's it for The Daily. I'm Natalie Kitroof. See you tomorrow.

娜塔莉：今天的《每日》到此结束。我是娜塔莉·基特罗夫。明天见。