法律翻译 |《哈佛法律论坛》第134卷第8期目录+摘要

译者：杨洁 剑桥大学 LLM

CONTENTS

目录

INTRODUCTION

引言

I.EMERGENCY ROOMS AND POLICING

一、急诊室与治安

    A.急诊室之穷人

    B.急诊室之警察

II. PROBLEMS OF POLICING IN THE ER

    A.忽视医疗脆弱性

        1.隐私保护的非语境路径

        2.服从一般警方调查

    B.寻求专业医疗援助

        1.Medical Professional Participation 

        1.专业医疗人士参与

        2.Medical Professionals as Good Citizens 

        2.医务人员亦良善公民

    C.可能的种族导向治安

        1.安全网急诊室中的汇聚

        2. Heightened Surveillance

        2.加强监视

        3. Pretextual Investigations

        3.虚假调查

III. ERS AS PATIENT SANCTUARIES

三、急诊室作为病患避难所

    A. Sanctuary in the ER Context

    A.急诊室语境下的避难所

    B.Doctrinal Privacy Rooted in Sanctuary 

    B.根植避难所的隐私理论

    C. Beyond Doctrine 

    D. Limits to ERs as Sanctuaries 

    D.急诊室作为避难所的限制

CONCLUSION

结论

Abstract

The problems of policing extend beyond the street and into areas of our lives that are often hidden from view. This Article focuses on how policing affects people in one such place where they are particularly vulnerable: the emergency room. It explores how the courts’ interpretation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments has resulted in the criminalization of the emergency room. The ER is where people go when they are vulnerable and injured. ERs play a crucial “safety-net” function for those who do not have access to other types of medical care. Yet courts have interpreted the ER as an extension of the public street, generally permitting the police to engage in highly intrusive searches and questioning there. The doctrine cannot account for the unique characteristics of the ER and the medical vulnerability of patients. Further, police investigations in the ER are enhanced by the participation of medical professionals who have existing professional norms as well as their own history and current evidence of bias and discrimination. Finally, the courts’ treatment of the ER as an extension of the street raises the same concerns of racialized street policing because of the convergence of police and marginalized groups in safety-net emergency rooms. The presence of police in the ER has a particularly pernicious effect in emergency rooms that have large percentages of racial minority and poor patients. Especially in these ERs, the doctrine’s blind eye to medical vulnerability also renders invisible the race and class dynamics undergirding policing and access to healthcare. I conclude by suggesting that the reasonable expectation of privacy standard should incorporate considerations of medical vulnerability and medical privacy. Further, as we question the harm or necessity of police presence in communities, we should conceptualize ERs as patient sanctuaries to achieve a better balance between the rights of vulnerable patients and public safety. 

摘要

治安问题从街道之上，延伸至我们生活隐匿的面向之中。本文聚焦于治安如何在人们尤为脆弱的地方——急诊室，对其施加影响。本文将探讨法院对第四和第五修正案的解释如何影响急诊室中的定罪。急诊室是人们虚弱受伤时的去所，为不具备其他医疗条件的人编织了一张至关重要的“安全网”。然而，法院将急诊室解释为公共街道的延伸，通常允许警察在此进行高度侵犯性的调查与讯问。这一理论忽视了急诊室的独特性及病患的脆弱性。再者，医务人员的参与强化了急诊室中的警察调查，而这些医者既秉持着专业规范，亦持有个人历史及偏见歧视的证据。最后，鉴于警察及边缘群体均汇聚于急诊室这一安全网中，法院将急诊室视为公共街道的延伸，激起了人们对种族化街道治安问题的同等关切。在少数族群和穷苦病患众多的急诊室中，警察的存在百害无利。特别是在这些急诊室中，该理论对医疗脆弱性的视若无睹，亦隐匿了强化治安和医疗途径的种族和阶级动力。总而言之，笔者主张合理的隐私期待应当综合考虑医疗脆弱性及医学隐私。进而，当我们质疑警察在社区存在的弊害及必要性时，应将急诊室拟制为病患的避难所，以更好地平衡羸弱病患的权利与公共安全。

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.......2795

    I. LOOKING OUTWARD....... 2797

        A. Foreign Affairs .......2798

        B. The Parole Power ....... 2799

        C. The Suspension Power ....... 2800

        D. International Immigration Power .......2802

    II. LOOKING INWARD .......2804

        C. Familiar Answers, New Questions .......2810

    III. LOOKING AHEAD .......2814

        A. Controlling Presidential Power .......2815

        B. Reducing Presidential Power .......2819

        C. Beyond the Domestic to the International .......2822

        D. Reimagining Limits on Presidential Power .......2826

CONCLUSION: BACK TO THE BEGINNING .......2831

目录

介绍.......2795

    I. 域外视角 .......2797

        A. 外交事务.......2798

        B. 假释权.......2799

        C. 暂停的权力.......2800

        D. 国际移民的权力.......2802

    II. 域内视角.......2804

        B. 自由裁量权、授权和“影子系统”.......2808

        C. 熟悉的答案，新的问题.......2810

    III. 展望未来.......2814

        A. 控制总统权力.......2815

        B. 削减总统权力.......2819

        C. 从国内到国际.......2822

        D. 重构对总统权力的限制.......2826

结论：回到起点.......2831

The second dimension of The President and Immigration Law is geographical. Cox and Rodríguez show how Presidents have exercised their immigration power outward — at the border and beyond. Relying on several federal statutes, Presidents have sometimes opened the border to certain newcomers and at other times barred certain others. Cox and Rodríguez also show how Presidents have exercised their power over immigration inside the United States, especially through domestic immigration enforcement. The source of this power is not specific statutes but rather a massive immigration enforcement system marked with vast discretion to deport noncitizens, or to leave them be (pp. 79–130).

这本书的分析架构有两个维度。第一种是时间维度的。Cox和Rodríguez回顾了过去并展望了未来。他们的回顾解释了总统移民权是如何从十八世纪末通过二十世纪末的大扩张（第17-46页）演变到目前的范围的。本书还展望了未来，探讨如何可以调动总统权力的优点并同时遏制其弊端的改革（第238-47页）。

总统和移民法的第二个维度是地理性的。Cox和Rodríguez向我们展示了总统是如何向外行使其移民权力的——在边境及其他地方。根据几项联邦法令，总统们有时向某些新来者开放边界，有时则禁止某些人进入。Cox和Rodríguez还展示了总统是如何在美国国内行使移民权力的，特别是通过国内移民执法。这一权力并非源自具体的法规，而是一个大规模的移民执法系统，该系统具有巨大的自由裁量权，可以将非公民驱逐出境，也可以不加理会（第79-130页）。

Part I of this Review examines the book’s historical account of presidential immigration power as it operates internationally at the border and beyond. This account is a very valuable part of Cox and Rodríguez’s analysis. Part II assesses the book’s treatment of presidential power in the context of domestic enforcement. Here, Cox and Rodríguez find new, broader meaning in arguments and analyses that may seem familiar. Part III concludes by suggesting why and how the future of presidential immigration power will most likely return to its international origins more than Cox and Rodríguez acknowledge. In the future, the most significant presidential decisions in responding to migration will probably not be domestic. They are more likely to be outward-facing decisions that influence the conditions that cause people to migrate, not just from their countries of origin but also through countries of transit to the United States and other destinations.

本评论的第一部分考察了这本书对总统移民权力在边境内外国际化运作的历史性描述。这篇描述是Cox和Rodríguez分析中非常有价值的一部分。第二部分评估了该书在国内执法背景下对总统权力的处理。在这里，Cox和Rodríguez在看似熟悉的论点和分析中发现了新的、更广泛的意义。第三部分最后提出了总统移民权力的未来为什么以及如何比Cox和Rodríguez所承认的更有可能回归其国际渊源。未来，在应对移民问题上，最重要的总统决定可能不是国内的。它们更可能是外向型决策，影响导致人们移民的条件，不仅指从原籍国移民，还涉及通过中转国移民到美国和其他目的地。

The President’s pardon power is a near-blank check hidden among the Constitution’s checks and balances. Despite substantial hand-wringing about possible abuses of the power, scholars have almost entirely overlooked the most potent tool in the President‘s pardon power arsenal: the ability to attach conditions to clemency grants (the “conditional pardon power”). As a subset of the general pardon power, the conditional pardon power is assumed to be similarly ‘unfettered’, ‘plenary’, or ‘unlimited’. This cannot be correct.

在宪法的制衡机制中，对总统赦免权的制约近乎空白。尽管学者们对这项权利可能被滥用的问题深感忧虑，但他们几乎完全忽视了总统赦免权中最强有力的工具：对给予赦免附加条件的能力（“附条件赦免权”）。作为一般赦免权的一个子集，附条件赦免权被认为近似于“不受约束的（unfettered）”、“绝对的（plenary）”，或“无限制的（unlimited）”。这种说法是不正确的。

If the conditional pardon power were truly “unfettered,” then the President could wield it for political advantage. He or she could pardon, and thereby re-enfranchise, thousands of convicted felons in key swing states upon the condition that they vote for his or her party in the upcoming election. Pardon recipients who failed to fulfill the condition would be thrown back in jail.

如果附条件赦免权确实“不受约束”，总统便可以利用这项权利来谋取政治利益。他或她可以赦免关键摇摆州的数千名被定罪的重罪犯，使他们重新获得选举权，条件是他们要在即将到来的选举中投票支持他或她的政党。而未能满足条件的赦免接受者将被送回监狱。

If the conditional pardon power were truly ‘plenary’, then the President could use it to replace a duly enacted penal scheme with one of his or her own choosing. Imagine Congress unanimously passed, over the President’s veto, a bill requiring jailtime for police officers who killed unarmed civilians with chokeholds. A President who preferred only limited civil liability could unilaterally impose a different penal scheme by pardoning all such officers upon the condition they pay the victim’s family a sum of money not to exceed $500.

如果附条件赦免权真的是“绝对的”，那么总统就可以根据自己的选择，通过行使这项权利来代替正式颁布的刑罚方案。想象一下，国会在总统的否决下一致通过了一项法案，要求对使用锁喉手段杀害手无寸铁的平民的警察判处监禁。一位只喜欢有限民事责任的总统可以单方面实施不同的惩戒方案来赦免所有这些警察，只要他们向受害者的家人支付一笔不超过500美元的费用。

And if the conditional pardon power were truly ‘unlimited’, then the President could impose horrifying conditions. He or she could pardon a healthy prisoner upon the condition that the prisoner donate her kidney to the President’s ailing cousin, or commute a death sentence upon the condition that the prisoner be strung up by his ankles and tortured in the Rose Garden for the First Family’s entertainment.

如果附条件赦免权确实是“无限制的”，那么总统将可以施加可怕的条件。他或她可以赦免一个健康的囚犯，条件是囚犯将其肾脏捐赠给总统生病的表亲，或者将死刑减刑，条件是将囚犯倒吊在玫瑰园里并加以折磨，以满足其个人家庭的娱乐消遣。

This Note’s examination of the conditional pardon power is valuable for a few reasons. First, the power is ripe for abuse. It could allow a norm-breaking President to infringe upon individual rights and, as perniciously, to undermine America’s separation of powers. Second, the original understanding of the conditional pardon power is sorely under developed. Given the increasingly originalist federal judiciary, the outcome of future conditional pardon cases could turn on the power’s original meaning. Finally, the conditional pardon power is underappreciated but not entirely neglected. America’s history books contain scattered instances of conditional pardons, some of which received scrutiny from the Supreme Court. History provides enough data points for this Note’s pardon power connect-the-dots to sketch an intelligible picture of the President’s conditional pardon power.

本评注对附条件豁免权的研究很是有价值的，原因有以下几点。首先，这项权利的确可以被滥用，以供一位打破常规的总统去侵犯个人权利，并破坏美国的分权制。其次，对附条件赦免的原始理解严重不足。鉴于联邦司法机构越发追求原义，未来的附条件赦免权案件的裁决结果可能会发展该权利的原始含义。最后，附条件赦免权不受重视，但也并非被完全忽略。美国的历史书籍中包含着零星的附条件赦免的例子，其中有一些受到了最高法院的审查。历史为本评注的赦免权提供了足够的数据，以便更清晰地解读总统的附条件赦免权。

This Note concludes that the President’s pardons may not include conditions that deprive an individual of rights not already deprived by that individual’s conviction(or, in the case of preemptive pardons, rights that would have been deprived by a guilty plea). This internal limitation is externally reinforced by the Due Process Clause. This Note’s historical and constitutional arguments should inform judges faced with conditional pardon cases. Whatever disagreements may arise over this Note’s descriptive account of the conditional pardon power’s limits, the examination of risks from unfettered conditional pardons commends to future administrations the wisdom of prudential limits.

本文的结论是总统的赦免不能包括剥夺个人未因定罪而被剥夺的权利（或者，在提前赦免的情况下，本应因认罪而被剥夺的权利）。正当程序条款从外部加强了这种内部限制。本评注有关历史和宪法的观点将为面临附条件赦免案件的法官提供参考。无论本文关于附条件赦免权的限制的描述将会引发何种分歧，基于对不受约束的附条件赦免所带来的风险的研究，本文建议未来的政府对此进行审慎限制。

Part I introduces the conditional pardon power jurisprudence. It begins by examining three cases showing that (1) English common law informs the President’s pardon power and (2) American courts oscillate between two distinct theories of the President’s pardon power. The first theory, which this Note dubs the ‘merciful-contract’ theory of pardons, envisions pardons as a private act between President and pardon recipient. By contrast, the ‘public-welfare’ theory understands pardons as an instrument of the general welfare. This Part next describes two conceptions of the conditional pardon power: a ‘Broad Position’ that would impose no limits on the conditional pardon power and a ‘Narrow Position’ that insists on limits but fails to precisely define them.

第一部分介绍了附条件豁免权的法学理论。首先，对三个案例进行考察，表明（1）英国普通法为总统的赦免权提供了依据，（2）美国法院在有关总统赦免权的两种截然不同的理论之间摇摆不定。第一种理论，本评注称之为“仁慈契约”赦免理论，将赦免设想为总统和赦免接收者之间的私人行为。相比之下，“公共福利”理论将赦免解读为一种促进大众福利的手段。本部分而后描述了关于附条件赦免权的两个概念：对附条件赦免权不加限制的“广义立场”和坚持主张限制但未能准确定义的“狭义立场”。

Part II argues that the Broad Position cannot be correct. After establishing that the conditional pardon power poses unique danger to constitutional rights, it concludes that the English common law, the Framing, and structural inference from our constitutional system all suggest a conditional pardon power that is far from plenary.

第二部分论证了“广义立场”不可能是正确的。在确定有条件豁免权对宪法权利构成特定威胁之后，得出结论：英国普通法、框架和以我们的宪法制度为基础的结构性推论都表明附条件赦免权远不是绝对的。

Part III identifies this limit: pardon conditions may only divest rights already forfeited by dint of conviction. It explains the limit using examples before fitting it into the theoretical framework of the pardon power. Finally, this Part compares the identified limit with other proposals and situates it within constitutional theory generally. Part IV concludes.

第三部分指出了对此种权力的限制：赦免条件只能剥夺由于被定罪而已经丧失的权利。在将其纳入赦免权的理论框架之前，该部分通过实例对这一限制进行了解释。最后，本部分将本文所确定的这一限制与其他观点进行比较，并将其置于宪法一般理论之中。第四部分是结论。

译者：杨洁 剑桥大学 LLM

在美国诉布克（United States v. Booker）案中，最高法院宣告《美国量刑指南》的强制性无效，恢复了地区法院法官在法定量刑区间内酌定量刑的自由裁量权。布克案允许对刑事量刑进行程序性与实质性上诉审查，但其后的判决并未厘清实质性审查的部分。如今，上诉法院监督地方法院遵守程序性手续，但对提高量刑中实质合理性的贡献微乎其微。近日，在美国诉琼斯案（United States v. Jones）中，第七巡回法院撤销了一个地区法院的判决，该判决大大偏离了《指南》中的建议量刑区间。然而，合议庭似乎为该地区法院发回重审后维持原判铺平了道路，只要其能更严格地遵守程序性手续。琼斯案揭露了布克案后联邦量刑体制的弊端。即便程序性上诉审查能够确保地区法院提供量刑理由，被告人仍会受到地区法官个人量刑哲学和主观评估的影响，损害量刑一致性，并削弱国会推行刑事司法改革的能力。

Deference to district court judges in sentencing is justified by their greater familiarity with the facts of the case and the personal characteristics of the defendant. But this deference comes at the cost of sacrificing “consistency and uniformity” in sentencing. True, the Guidelines still have considerable influence in the post-Booker sentencing scheme. About half of federal sentences fall within the Guidelines range, and appellate courts may freely presume that within-Guidelines sentences are reasonable. However, above-Guidelines sentences — even sentences, like the one imposed on Jones, that deviate widely from the Guidelines range — impact hundreds of defendants each year. Without substantive appellate review, these defendants are left without recourse even if procedural appellate review ensures that the justification provided by the district court checks the obligatory boxes. As long as the discretion of district court judges in sentencing remains constrained only by perfunctory, formalistic procedural review, offenders unlucky enough to be sentenced by a tough-on-crime district court will be unable to benefit from future criminal justice reform. 

尊重地区法院法官的判决理由在于其对于案件事实和被告的个人特征更为熟悉，但这份尊重却以牺牲量刑一致性为代价。诚然，《指南》依旧对布克案后的量刑体制影响深远。近半数的联邦量刑都在《指南》的范围之内，且上诉法院可以自由推定指南内的量刑是合理的。然而，超越指南的量刑，甚至是如琼斯案那般大幅偏离指南范围的量刑，每年都会影响数百名被告。缺乏实质性上诉审查，即便程序性上诉审查能够确保地区法院提供的理由符合强制性要求，被告也追索无门。只要地区法院法官在量刑方面的自由裁量权仍只受限于敷衍且教条的程序审查，不幸被严于打击犯罪的地区法院判刑的罪犯，将无法从未来的刑事司法改革中受益。

译者：杨洁 剑桥大学 LLM

转化治疗，又名性向转化尝试（SOCE），是一种试图改变性取向或性别认知的疗法，不具备科学可信性。尽管最骇人的转化治疗已遭大幅摈弃，但话疗等饱受争议的疗法仍方兴未艾。如今，在700,000名接受过转化治疗的LGBTQ+美国成年人中，有近半数人在孩童时期便已接受过治疗。为了保护LGBTQ+儿童，20个州通过了禁止职业医师对未成年人进行转化治疗的禁令。此类禁令着眼于未成年人，因为该群体通常是因家人施压而接受治疗，所受伤害尤其之大。

Just days after California passed the first ban, multiple lawsuits challenging the ban’s constitutionality were filed. Each circuit that has reviewed these bans has upheld them, until now. Recently, in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, the Eleventh Circuit held that local bans on juvenile conversion therapy violated the First Amendment. In doing so, the Otto panel incorrectly categorized talk therapy as constitutionally protected speech when Supreme Court precedent would instead suggest treating it as speech only incidental to conduct, subject to lower scrutiny. The holding threatens to turn the First Amendment into a blunt weapon against all regulations aimed at professional conduct. 

仅在加州颁布第一项禁令几天后，多起挑战该禁令合宪性的诉讼便被提起。在此之前，每一审查过此等禁令的巡回法院均判决支持。近日，在奥托诉博卡拉顿市 (Otto v. City of Boca Raton)一案中，第十一巡回法院判决，地方禁止青少年接受转化治疗违反了第一修正案。基于此，奥托案的合议庭错误地将话疗视为宪法保护的言论，而最高院的先例实则仅将其视为行为的附属品，审查较为宽松。这一判决可能使第一修正案沦为对抗任何规制专业行为法规的钝器。

Otto created a circuit split and represented a stark departure from sister circuits that have upheld bans against SOCE therapy for minors. Otto has sweeping implications — not only subjecting all restrictions on professional speech to strict scrutiny but also prohibiting minor conversion therapy bans in numerous states. Suffering conversion therapy at the hands of licensed therapists is particularly pernicious because licensed medical professionals hold unique positions of authority, credibility, and trust in society. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Otto represents a massive leap backwards in the fight for LGBTQ+ civil rights.

奥托案带来了巡回法院的判决分歧，与其他同级法院支持青少年SOCE治疗禁令相去甚远。奥托案影响深远：不仅严肃审查了所有针对专业言论的限制，数州禁止青少年转化治疗的禁令亦概莫能外。由于职业医者享有无可比拟的社会威信力，接受执业治疗师的转化治疗弊害无穷。第十一巡回法院在奥托案中的判决，昭示着LGBTQ+公民权利斗争的巨大倒退。

Nonetheless, Otto is only one decision in a long line of cases reflecting the judiciary’s trend toward expanding the scope of protected speech under the First Amendment. With a fresh circuit split and ongoing courtroom battles over minor SOCE bans, the constitutionality of such laws may soon reach the Supreme Court. While the Court has consistently chipped away at its own First Amendment limits, it has not yet eliminated its exception for speech incidental to conduct. So long as the Supreme Court continues to cling to this exception to uphold abortion restrictions against free speech challenges, circuit courts must also continue to abide by what remains of this delicate framework. 

尽管如此，奥托案仅是反映司法拓宽第一修正案下保护言论边界的数案之一。伴随着针对未成年人SOCE禁令的新巡回法院判决分歧，加之正在上演的法庭之争，该等法规的合宪性审查可能不日便会上达最高法院。虽然最高法院仍在削减其在第一修正案下的限制，但并未推翻言论附属于行为的例外。只要最高法院继续贯彻这一例外，以支持挑战言论自由的堕胎限制，巡回法院也必须遵守这一微妙框架下的残余部分。

译者：王潇 隆德大学  LLM

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce agreements by private parties to resolve their disputes in arbitration rather than litigation. Despite abundant evidence that Congress intended the FAA to apply only in federal court and only to commercial dealings, the Supreme Court has reinterpreted the law since the 1980s, imposing it on state courts and finding in it a command to enforce even one-sided arbitration contracts imposed on consumers and workers by corporate actors eager to keep claims individual, secret, and rare. Emboldened by these victories, corporations have begun drafting agreements with “infinite” terms that purport to bind individuals in perpetuity to arbitrate any and all claims they might bring against a vast group of counterparties. Recently, in Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC, the Ninth Circuit declined to enforce such an agreement against a consumer plaintiff. While the Revitch court reached a just result, its reasoning arguably contravened state law and Supreme Court precedent, making the decision unlikely to support broad-based judicial rejection of these contracts. However, a separate concurrence in the case was more doctrinally sound and may therefore light the way for future courts to hold infinite arbitration agreements unenforceable.

For decades, lower courts have struggled to resist the Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration FAA jurisprudence. They have almost universally failed, and the Court has instead “doubled down on FAA expansion,” ushering arbitration deep into American life. While Revitch’s core holding will likely do little to reverse this trend, Judge O’Scannlain’s revival of the FAA’s “arising out of” limitation may prove invaluable for courts confronting the corporate bar’s latest arbitration excesses.

联邦仲裁法（FAA）要求法院强制执行私人当事人的协议，通过仲裁而非诉讼来解决争端。尽管有大量证据表明国会希望FAA仅适用于联邦法院且仅适用于商业交易，但1980年代，最高法院重新解释了该法律，开始将其强加于州法院，并在该法中裁定，强制执行由企业行为者强加给消费者和工人的单边仲裁合同，以达到企业行为者渴望保持个人的、秘密的和稀有的索赔的目的。受到这些胜利的鼓舞，公司开始起草具有“无限”条款的协议，旨在永久的在仲裁上约束个人，以解决他们针对大量对手方提出的任何和所有索赔。最近，在Revitch诉DIRECTV, LLC一案中，第九巡回法院拒绝执行针对消费者原告的此类协议。虽然Revitch案法院得出了公正的结果，但其推理实际上违反了州法律和最高法院的判例，使得该决定不太可能支持对这些合同进行广泛的司法拒绝。然而，该案中的单独同意在理论上更为合理，因此这可能为未来法院认定无限仲裁协议不可强制执行铺平道路。

几十年来，下级法院一直在努力抵制最高法院支持仲裁的FAA判例。他们几乎都失败了，法院反而“加大FAA的扩张力度”，将仲裁深深引入进美国生活。虽然Revitch案的核心观点可能无法扭转这一趋势，但O'Scannlain法官重新指出FAA产生于限制这一性质，对于法院应对公司律师协会最近的过度仲裁非常宝贵。

译者：杨洁 剑桥大学 LLM

长期以来，法院一直将公寓和独立住宅相区分。尽管独立住宅的居民享有第四修正案下的广泛保护，得以免受不合理的搜查和扣押，公寓居民则不然。在佛罗里达诉贾迪斯案（Florida v. Jardines）中，最高法院判决庭院属于独立住宅的“宅”，因而享有第四修正案对住宅本身的同等保护。然而，恰如最高法院针对第四修正案的诸多判决，贾迪斯案仅涉及独立住宅。近日，在美国诉特里切（United States v. Trice）案中，第六巡回法院判决租客公寓靠走廊的墙壁不属于宅地，因而不受宪法保护。在未能将贾迪斯案中的宅地分析应用于公寓的语境之下，第六巡回法院错失了拓宽宅地理论 (curtilage doctrine)下第四修正案保护范围的良机，从而助长了当前第四修正案法理下滋生的种族、民族与阶级不平等。

While the Sixth Circuit had an opportunity to expand Fourth Amendment protections in the apartment context, its rigid curtilage analysis all but foreclosed the possibility. Trice perpetuated distinctions that allocate Fourth Amendment protections on the basis of class, race, and ethnicity. As some have noted, the Framers certainly could not have foreseen that Fourth Amendment rights would be distributed in this manner. The Sixth Circuit had the policy and doctrinal backing to begin to remedy this inequity, yet it failed to do so.

尽管第六巡回法院本可以将第四修正案的保护范围拓宽至公寓，其僵化的宅地分析论几乎排除了这种可能性。特里切案延续了第四修正案基于阶级、种族和民族分配的差别保护。恰如部分人所言，制宪者确实无法预见第四修正案的权利会如此分配。第六巡回法院曾手握政策和理论支撑，却未能扭转不公。

译者：王潇 隆德大学 LLM

译者：王潇 隆德大学 LLM

In terms of genre, Wexler’s narrative is tragic. It conjures to mind a world in which two relatively powerless actors — criminal defendants and consumers — are pitted against one another, a conflict fated for zero-sum resolution. Longer term, however, the more important narrative is not a tragedy. It is a polemic. And its focus is not on the less powerful characters, but the more powerful ones: the surveillance state and its corporate handmaidens, both of whom would prefer all of us, as subjects of power, to imagine their relationship in oppositional rather than synergistic terms.

在《隐私权作为特权》一文中，Rebecca Wexler教授认为，法院应该停止通过解释《存储通信法》（SCA）阻止刑事辩护方传唤通信记录。她编造了一个通信隐私与刑事被告提起有力诉讼的能力相冲突的故事。这个故事没有错；这样的冲突是存在的。然而，更重要的故事则与之略有不同。它来源于相同的事实，同样含有弱势的刑事被告。但这次他们不是主角。相反，主角是那些经常根据SCA收到辩护传票的大型科技公司，他们出庭对这些传票进行抗辩，并为他们的用户赢得“隐私胜利”。这个故事的寓意，归结起来，就是我们应该提防这些胜利；因为它们并不完全像看起来的那样。如果一个系统的通信隐私边界是由那些以侵蚀为盈利模式的实体来决定的话，这不是一个健康的系统。它可能比没有通信隐私保护的系统好一些。但除此之外，它不值得赞扬。

就体裁而言，Wexler的叙事是悲剧性的。它描述了一个世界，在这个世界中有两个相对弱势的角色——刑事被告和消费者——他们相互对抗，有着一场零和博弈的冲突。然而，从长远来看，更重要的叙事并不是悲剧。这是一场争论。它关注的不是权力较小的角色，而是权力更大的角色：监控国家及其公司助手，他们都希望作为权力主体的我们，以对立而不是协同的方式来想象他们之间的关系。

译者：王潇 隆德大学  LLM

To my knowledge, there have been no public conversations about or reflections upon individual actions and inactions that might have contributed to the problem. There continue to be some 30,000 employees of the federal judiciary subject to harassment and discrimination without many basic employment protections.

I don’t know how to make enough out of this public silence. I don’t have the answers to fix this problem: I am not an expert in building harassment-free workplaces, and thus I cannot, should not, and will not be prescriptive — despite this Essay’s publication in a law review. Instead, I intend for my experience to be an invitation and an invocation for those who have not spent all of their chips through congressional testimony in their first year of legal practice to consider the power still in their hands. This work includes evaluating their enormous power in legal, political, and educational institutions that could rectify, or at least ameliorate, this problem quite swiftly, if there was the will to do so. Equally important, this work requires the examination of their power in daily interactions with the people around them, including people who have been harassed and people who have harassed others.

* Ms. Warren is a Staff Attorney at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation in Durham, North Carolina. On February 13, 2020, she provided oral and written testimony to the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet about the sexual harassment she experienced while clerking for the late Judge Stephen Reinhardt on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from May of 2017 to March of 2018.

据我所知，目前还没有对于可能导致这一问题的个人作为和不作为进行过公开的对话或反思。联邦司法机构仍有约30,000名雇员没有许多基本的就业保护措施，在职场中受到骚扰和歧视。

我不知道如何充分利用公众的沉默。我没有解决这个问题的答案：我不是创造无骚扰工作场所的专家，因此我不能、不应该、也不会作出规定性描述——尽管这篇文章发表在法律评论的期刊中。相反，我打算让我的经历成为那些在法律实践的第一年没有通过国会证词花费所有筹码的人的邀请和呼吁，以考虑仍然掌握在他们手中的权力。这项工作包括评估他们在法律、政治和教育机构中的巨大权力，如果有意愿的话，这些机构可以相当迅速地纠正或至少改善这个问题。同样重要的是，这项工作需要检查他们在与周围人日常互动中的权力，这些人包括受到骚扰和骚扰过他人的人。

*Warren女士是北卡罗莱纳州达勒姆市死刑诉讼中心的专职律师。2020年2月13日，她向美国众议院司法委员会、法院小组委员会、知识产权小组委员会以及互联网提供了口头和书面的证据，该证据是关于她在2017年5月至2018年3月在第九巡回上诉法院担任书记员期间，被已故法官Stephen Reinhardt性骚扰的经历。

译者：杨洁 剑桥大学 LLM

In the United States, caste oppression is real and present in our midst. In the summer of 2020, several employees of large tech firms like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco came forward with harrowing tales of workplace discrimination, including being paid less, denied promotions, and mocked for their caste background. And, undoubtedly, the scourge of caste discrimination extends beyond Big Tech. While caste discrimination is in no sense new, these recent reports should serve as a needed wake-up call. Eradicating caste discrimination demands our immediate collective attention and action.

在美国，种姓压迫真实地存在于你我之间。2020年夏天，谷歌、苹果、微软和思科等大型科技公司的几名员工，讲述了令人痛心的职场歧视经历：薪酬较低，晋升被拒，因自身的种姓背景而饱受讥讽。毫无疑问，种姓歧视之祸根不仅仅埋藏在科技巨头中。尽管种姓歧视已屡见不鲜，近日来的这些报道已敲响了警钟。根除种姓歧视，必须立即集中精力，采取行动。

As just one step in the complex and continuing fight to eradicate caste oppression, this Essay contends that caste discrimination is cognizable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In particular, we argue that in light of our understanding of the caste system and the Supreme Court’s teaching in Bostock v. Clayton County, caste discrimination is a type of racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and national origin discrimination—all covered under Title VII. Recognizing caste discrimination as such provides potent tools to the relevant stakeholders to combat caste oppression. But more importantly, it also confers duties upon employers and government institutions to be vigilant in ensuring that employees are safeguarded from caste discrimination. 

作为根除种姓压迫复杂而持续的斗争中的一步，本文认为1964年《民权法案》第七章可以规范种姓歧视。我们特别主张，根据最高法院在博斯托克诉克莱顿县（Bostock v. Clayton County）一案中对种姓制度的理解，种姓歧视是一种对种族、宗教和血统的歧视，而这些都在第七章的涵射范围之中。如此认定种姓歧视为相关利益方抗击种姓压迫提供了有力工具。但更为重要的是，它同时赋予了雇主及政府机构注意义务，以确保其雇员免受种族歧视之害。