譯/李京倫
美國會僵局 增強最高法院權力
On the last day of a turbulent term that included rulings on what the Constitution has to say about abortion, guns and religion, the Supreme Court issued another sort of decision, one that turned on the words of the Clean Air Act.
美國聯邦最高法院在動盪多事的審期中，就憲法關於墮胎、槍枝和宗教的立場做出判決，而在審期最後一天，最高院針對「潔淨空氣法」的措辭發布另一項決定。
Without "clear congressional authorization," the court said, the Environmental Protection Agency was powerless to aggressively address climate change. In years past, that might have been the start of a dialogue with Congress, which after all has the last word on what statutes mean, because it can always pass new ones.
最高法院說，若無「國會明確授權」，聯邦環保署無權積極應對氣候變遷。在往年，這可能是與國會對話的開端，畢竟國會對法規意涵有最終決定權，因為國會總能通過新法。
But thanks to legislative gridlock, Congress very seldom responds these days to Supreme Court decisions interpreting its statutes — and that means the balance of power between the branches has shifted, with the justices ascendant.
但由於立法僵局，如今國會鮮少回應最高法院詮釋法規的判決，而這意味三權之間的權力平衡改變，司法權增加了。
The consequences have been especially stark in Supreme Court rulings on global emergencies like climate change and the coronavirus pandemic, but the phenomenon is a general one. Congress has largely fallen silent, as a partisan stalemate has gripped Capitol Hill, aggravated by the increased use of the filibuster, which has blocked almost all major legislation in an evenly divided Senate. The upshot is a more dominant court.
最高法院就氣候變遷和新冠疫情等全球緊急事件做出的判決，後果特別嚴重，不過這個現象屢見不鮮。由於國會山莊深陷黨派僵局，國會在很大程度上變得沉默，而愈來愈常使用的議事杯葛拖延戰術，在兩黨各占半數席次的參院阻止了幾乎所有重大法案過關，使國會沉默情況更嚴重。結果是最高法院更有主導權。
It was not always so.
事情並不總是如此。
"If you go back to the '80s, every time the court did something Congress didn't like, they passed a law," said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard. "It was an iterative process between Congress, the agencies and the courts."
哈佛大學法律教授拉薩魯斯說：「如果你回到1980年代，每當最高法院做了國會不喜歡的事，國會就通過法律。這是國會、行政機關和最高法院間重複的過程。」
Congressional inaction following Supreme Court rulings on statutes is not especially new, but it has taken on added importance, as the court has veered to the right and is increasingly insisting on clear grants of congressional authority to executive agencies. In addition to the ruling on climate change, the court has recently declared that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not authorized to impose a moratorium on evictions and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was not authorized to tell large employers to have their workers vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo frequent testing.
國會在最高法院就法規做出判決後沒有動靜，並非特別新鮮的事，但在最高院向右轉並日益堅持行政機關須有國會明確授權之際，這個現象格外重要。最高法院除了氣候變遷判決之外，最近宣布聯邦疾病防治中心無權實施暫停驅逐欠租房客的命令，職業安全與健康管理局無權責令大型公司要求員工接種新冠疫苗或接受頻繁篩檢。
Congress is, of course, powerless to revive a law that the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional. In such cases, the court gets the last word, and only a constitutional amendment or a later overruling can undo its work.
國會當然無權讓最高法院判決違憲的法律恢復效力。在這類例子中，最高法院有最終決定權，除非修憲或後來推翻原判決，才能讓最初判決失效。
