身体{overflow-x:设置}#主要内容{padding-top: 52 px}。{margin-top: -52px; top: 0;z-index: 999;background: #fff;}wrp - 666 ec6f9 - 9477 - 4 - a93 - 832 e - c2256fc33200如果

　　名称{高度:52px;}。background: #fff;display: block;position: absolute;top: 0;left: 0;height: calc(100% + 1px);transform: translateX(-50vw);left: 50%;font - family:宋体;font - family:宋体

　　只有屏幕和(min-width: 800px){#main-co

　　内容{padding-top: 60px;}。wp -666ec6f9-9477-4a93-832e-c2256fc33200 {margin-top: -60px;}。wrp - 666 ec6f9 - 9477 - 4 - a93 - 832 e - c2256fc33200如果

　　名称{高度:60px;}。Wrp-666ec6f9-9477-4a93-832e-c2256fc33200::before{max-height: 61px;}}@media

　　只有屏幕和(min-width: 1280px){。关键时刻—sticky {top: 61px;}}@media o

　　只有屏幕和(min-width: 1024px){。tpl-article__sidebar {: 48 px;}}

　　美国最高法院就唐纳德·特朗普的豁免案做出裁决，称特朗普在干预选举案中享有部分刑事豁免权。

　　这位前总统称赞这一进展是“民主的重大胜利”，因为民主党人声称，这一裁决给了他“通往独裁的钥匙”。

　　但法院到底是怎么裁决的呢?接下来会发生什么?总统们现在真的可以派遣海豹突击队追捕他们的政治对手了吗?

　　最高法院裁定，唐纳德·特朗普可能不受试图推翻2020年大选结果的指控。

　　最高法院以6比3的党派分歧裁定，总统不能因其“核心宪法”职责范围内的行为而受到起诉。

　　官方行为有权享有“豁免推定”，这意味着起诉特朗普的特别检察官杰克·史密斯(Jack Smith)有责任反驳豁免要求。

　　华盛顿特区的地方法院将决定特朗普可以获得哪些指控的总统豁免权。

　　最高法院在裁决中提到了针对特朗普的一些具体指控，为下级法院提供了“指导”。

　　特朗普试图用一名忠诚的人取代他的司法部长，以监督他所谓的“被操纵”的选举，这是绝对豁免的，因为总统拥有解雇行政官员的唯一权力。

　　他还涉嫌对迈克·彭斯施加压力，要求他不证实2020年大选的结果，这是一种“权威推定”。司法部需要反驳这一假设。

　　法院表示，特朗普在1月6日骚乱当天的讲话——他呼吁支持者“像地狱一样战斗”——也可能被列为官方行为。

　　首席大法官约翰?罗伯茨(John Roberts)在他撰写的长达43页的意见书中引用了大量案例、先例和宪法原则。

　　然而，他的关键观点是，如果刑事起诉的威胁笼罩着总统，他就无法恰当地履行自己的职责。

　　他引用了1982年针对前总统理查德·尼克松(Richard Nixon)的一个案件，该案件确立了总统对民事诉讼的豁免权。

　　“潜在的刑事责任……显然比潜在的民事损害赔偿更有可能扭曲总统的决策，”他写道。

　　During his time in office, Mr Trump filled the Supreme Court with conservative justices - all of whom voted along political lines in his favour.

　　Sonia Sotomayor, an associate justice who dissented from the court’s opinion, claimed the ruling would give presidents the power to assassinate political enemies.

　　“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold onto power? Immune,” she said.

　　Trump’s lawyers have previously argued that a president could assassinate his political rivals without criminal prosecution, as long as they were not impeached first. However, the court ruled against this.

　　Some of the more extreme commentators on social media urged Joe Biden, the US president, to assassinate Trump and launch a drone attack on the Supreme Court.

　　Assassinating a rival would only be consistent with the court’s ruling if it fell within the president’s official acts.

　　A US president using the power of the state to kill political rivals and maintain his grip on power would be an unprecedented – and hugely unlikely – development.

　　Stephen Wermiel, a law professor specialising in the Supreme Court, said the notion was “preposterous”, but said proponents could argue it was covered by the president’s role as commander in chief.

　　The Jan 6 case will return to the Washington DC’s district court, where lawyers will battle over how far Trump can claim immunity from the charges.

　　Prof Wermiel said the Court’s ruling had likely killed any chances of the case coming to trial before November’s election.

　　“[DC district] Judge Chutkan will have to allow the lawyers to file briefs and maybe have a hearing on what is official and immune and what is unofficial and not immune,” he told The Telegraph. “I presume either side could appeal the rulings.”

　　Chief justice Roberts said questions about immunity were best decided by the lower courts “in the first instance”, leaving open the possibility of the Supreme Court having the final say.

　　As the Jan 6 trial has almost certainly been delayed beyond the election, Trump can head into November without being hamstrung by further criminal charges or court appearances that would remove him from the campaign trail.

　　The former president and his Republican allies have sought to present the ruling as evidence that Mr Biden has “weaponised” the justice system against him.

　　“Joe Biden’s case fell apart after the Supreme Court just gave me total immunity for all official acts,” a message from the Trump campaign reads.

　　However, the Biden campaign has used the decision to hammer home its message that Trump is a fundamental threat to democracy.

　　“If Trump wins again, he’ll be even more dangerous and unhinged because he knows the courts won’t hold him back,” it said.