美国联邦法院判决

美国联邦法院的权力与职责美国联邦法院是美国司法体系中的核心机构，它在维护法治和保障公民权益方面发挥着重要的作用。

本文将对美国联邦法院的权力与职责进行论述，以探讨其在法律体系中的地位和作用。

一、司法独立与审判权在美国，司法独立是一项重要的原则，旨在确保法院能够独立行使其职能，不受其他两个政府分支的干涉。

美国联邦法院拥有广泛的审判权，它可以解释和执行联邦宪法、法律和法规，确保它们得到正确的解释和适用。

这种审判权使联邦法院成为执行和确保法律公正和平等的关键机构。

二、宪法解释与权力制衡作为宪法的最高解释机构，联邦法院拥有权力解释宪法的能力。

根据《美国宪法》，它可以对法律、法规和政府行为进行审查，判断其是否符合宪法的规定。

这种宪法解释权使联邦法院能够平衡并限制行政和立法部门的权力，以保证宪法的权威和合法性。

三、审查联邦政府行为联邦法院有权审查联邦政府的行为，以确保其遵守宪法和法律。

它可以对政府机构和官员的决策进行司法审查，例如裁定宪法的合宪性、性别歧视、种族歧视和其他违反法律的行为。

这种审查权力是保护公民权益和监督政府行为的重要手段，确保政府在行使权力时合法合理。

四、民事纠纷解决美国联邦法院也负责处理民事纠纷，如商业、雇佣、知识产权等案件。

它在处理这些纠纷时，以法律和权益为导向，通过审理案件、解释法律来保障公平和正义。

联邦法院的判决对各州具有约束力，确保了法律的统一适用和公平性。

五、维护公民权益美国联邦法院在维护公民权益方面发挥着至关重要的作用。

通过判决案件，它保护了公民的基本权利和自由，如言论自由、宗教自由、人身安全等。

联邦法院还处理了一系列有关社会道德和伦理问题的案件，例如人权、环境保护、少数群体权益等。

这种维护公民权益的职责使联邦法院成为社会公平和正义的守护者。

六、司法先例与法律影响联邦法院的判决和裁决形成了一系列的司法先例，为日后类似案件提供了法律依据和指导。

这些先例对于法律的适用和发展具有重要的影响力，可以对个案和社会产生深远的影响。

案件名称：伍斯特诉佐治亚州(WORCESTER v. THE STATE OF GEOGIA ), 31 U.S.515, 1832 WL 3389(U.S.Ga)案件时间：1832年案件背景：非印第安人伍斯特未经其所在的佐治亚州允许，进入切罗基印第安人部落保留区，被州法院判定有罪并处以四年重劳动监禁。

原告向最高法院起诉，认为他被定罪的依据佐治亚州法违宪。

最高法院判决原告胜诉。

原告：西蒙·A·伍斯特被告：佐治亚州判决法官：约翰·马歇尔首席大法官判决结果：原告胜诉，佐治亚州判决伍斯特在佐治亚州监狱服重劳动监禁的判决违宪，应被驳回并废止。

争论焦点：佐治亚州是否有权对切罗基印第安人保护区进行管理。

法官推理：1 切罗基部族等印第安部族是独立的政治共同体，在领土范围内有排他性的自治权：（1）在殖民时期，欧洲国家为了减少相互竞争确立了协调原则，但这些原则并不影响印第安人的权力与权利；（2）独立战争期间，大陆会议与切罗基部族之间所签订的条约中的部分措辞并不能被理解为切罗基部族放弃了其自治权；（3）宪法颁布后美国与切罗基部族签订的条约明确认识的了切罗基部族的自治权；（4）美国与印第安部族反复签署条约的实际状况说明美国承认其自治权。

2 切罗基部族是一个有自己领土的独特共同体，并有详细勘定的边境线，与切罗基部族的交往权力在于国会，因此佐治亚州强制干涉合众国与切罗基之间关系的法律违宪；3 依据违宪的法律进行的判决也是违宪的，应该被驳回并废止。

案件名称：约翰逊诉迈金托什案(Johnson v. M’Intosh ),(21 U.S. 543)案件时间：1818年案件背景：1773年和1775年一批投资者违反1763年英国国王公告和1779年弗吉尼亚议会关于不允许从印第安人手中购买土地的规定从弗吉尼亚州印第安人手中购买了土地。

1818年合众国将这些土地出让给威廉·迈金托什，结果这些购买土地者对迈金托什提出公诉,并上诉至最高法院。

英美判决书简介及其结构 This model paper was revised by the Standardization Office on December 10, 2020判决书的种类：将法院判决结果，以文字记载成为书面司法文书，这种书面司法文书称为“判决书（Reports）”，判决后的案件一般通称为“案例（Case）”。

判决书的种类有两种，一为官方判决书（Official Report）：法院将判决结果印成书面判决。

一为非官方判决书（Unofficial Report）：由民间出版商将判决整理后出版成册，内容除了判决内容外，书商请专家整理并加上与本案有关的注解、法律条文、相关法院判决等，参考价值大于官方判决书。

官方判决书例如，美国联邦最高法院判决集，称为“United States Reports”（简称.）；各州最高法院也会出版判决集，如密西根州最高法院判决集，称为“Michigan Reports”（简称“Mich.”）；有些州第二审法院也出版判决集，如密西根州二审法院判决集，称为“Michigan Appeals Reports”（简称“Mich. App.”）。

美国现有3个比较大的法律图书出版商出版非官方判决书，第一家为“西方图书公司”（West Publishing Company），第二家为“律师出版公司”（Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company），第三家为“学徒殿堂图书公司”（Prentice Hall Inc.）。

例如西方图书公司整理出版《联邦最高法院判决集》，称为“Supreme Court Report”，（简称.）；律师出版公司出版《联邦最高法院判决集》，称为“United States Reports Lawyers Edition”，（简称）；这两套书是将联邦最高法院判决累积一段时间后，才出版成册。

有些判决集出版速度较快，一个星期整理出版一次；也有当天下午出版还未登录案号的当天判决，如“United States Law Weeks（）”，“United States SupremeCourt Bulletin（）”等。

美国最高法院九名大法官二十六日以5:4做出判决，命令各州应当给予同性婚姻登记同时要承认他州登记的同性婚姻。

肯尼迪大法官的意见书得到其他四个大法官的同意，成为法院的判决书，另外四个大法官提出了不同意见。

本案以俄亥俄州的奥贝格费尔（Jim Obergefell）诉侯吉斯（Hodges, 州卫生部主任）为主，同时合并讨论了密西根州、肯塔基州、和田纳西州的三个案子。

这四个案子共有14对同性伴侣和两个失去同性伴侣的同性恋者。

这四个州的法律规定，婚姻是一男一女的联合，故州政府不予登记本案原告的结婚申请。

原告于是到联邦地区法院要求法院否定州的婚姻法违宪。

联邦地区法院批准了他们的申请。

但是，州政府上诉到美国联邦第六巡回法庭。

该法院否定了地区法院的判决。

这14对同性配偶和两个丧偶者最后只有要求联邦最高法院调卷审核。

联邦法院予以同意调卷审核。

最高法院审核的结果是否定了第六巡回法庭的判决，给予同性婚姻合法化。

肯尼迪大法官专门介绍了奥贝格费尔的遭遇。

奥贝格费尔二十多年年前和另一男子（阿瑟）相爱，生活了二十多年，阿瑟在2011年罹患不治之症（肌萎缩性脊髓侧索硬化症，俗称渐冻症）。

在他去世前（2013年），他们从俄亥俄州到马里兰登记结婚，这时阿瑟已经不能动了。

他们乘坐医疗飞机去马里兰，在飞机上登记了结婚和举行了婚礼。

几个月后，被称为丈夫的阿瑟去世。

可是俄亥俄州不承认其婚姻，否认奥贝格费尔具有死者的配偶权利。

合并本案的另外一对同性伴侣的案情是这样的：来自密西根的蒂波尔和偌丝双双是护士。

2007年她们举行郑重仪式，然后生活在一起。

她们收养了三个孩子。

按照密西根州的法律，只有异性夫妻或单身可以收养孩子。

她们俩不能共同收养孩子。

这样，孩子一旦有紧急事情，另外一方不能享有任何法律上的权利，包括监护权等。

肯尼迪大法官还介绍了第三个案子。

在美国陆军后备役服役的一级中士德廓和廓斯图拉相爱。

在2011年德廓接到命令奔赴阿富汗之前，他们两个来到纽约登记结婚。

美国民事执行制度介绍在美国，民事执行制度由联邦和州两个层面的法院体系来执行。

联邦法院处理跨州或涉及联邦法律的案件，而州法院则负责处理纯州内的民事案件。

民事执行程序通常从判决或裁决的确定开始。

在判决或裁决的生效后，胜诉方需要向执行官申请执行。

执行官是一种司法官员，负责监督并执行民事判决和裁决。

执行申请可以是以货币形式进行的，如支付判决上确定的金额，也可以是以非货币形式进行的，如要求对方停止项行为或提供其中一种服务。

执行官会对执行申请进行审核，确保申请的合法性和有效性。

如果执行申请被接受，执行官会向被执行方发出执行令。

执行令是一项法律文件，要求被执行方遵守法院的判决或裁决。

被执行方被通知后，他们有机会提出异议。

如果被执行方认为判决或裁决存在错误或不公正，他们可以向法院提出申诉，要求重新审理或撤销判决或裁决。

法院会对申诉进行审查，并根据法律和证据做出最终决定。

一旦执行令生效，被执行方需要遵守判决或裁决。

如果被执行方不遵守执行令，胜诉方可以向执行官申请采取进一步的强制执行措施。

这些措施可能包括冻结被执行方的银行账户、查封财产、扣押工资或财产以及其他形式的财产强制执行。

然而，执行判决涉及到的程序并不总是如此简单。

由于立法和法律的不同，不同的州对于执行的要求和程序可能会有所不同。

此外，执行过程中可能会出现许多挑战，如被执行方隐藏财产、转移资金或寻求破产保护等。

因此，胜诉方可能需要雇佣律师或专业执行人员来协助执行判决。

总的来说，美国的民事执行制度确保了司法判决的合理执行。

它为公民和企业提供了一种解决纠纷和保护权益的重要途径。

然而，执行判决仍然是一项复杂的过程，需要双方的合作和法院的积极介入，以确保结果的公正和公平。

第1篇一、背景随着互联网的飞速发展，数字版权问题日益突出。

在众多涉及数字版权的案件中，美国诉谷歌公司侵犯版权案无疑是其中最具影响力的案例之一。

本案始于2005年，谷歌公司被指控未经授权扫描和上传了大量图书馆的书籍，侵犯了版权人的合法权益。

二、案件经过1. 案件起因2004年，谷歌公司启动了一项名为“谷歌图书”的项目，旨在将世界各地的图书馆藏书数字化。

然而，这一项目并未得到版权持有人的普遍认可。

2005年，美国作家协会（ Authors Guild ）和出版社协会（ Association of American Publishers ）联名起诉谷歌公司，指控其未经授权扫描和上传大量图书，侵犯版权。

2. 法庭审理案件经过长达数年的审理。

法庭主要围绕以下几个争议点展开：（1）谷歌公司是否侵犯了版权人的复制权？（2）谷歌公司是否侵犯了版权人的公开传播权？（3）谷歌公司是否构成合理使用？3. 法庭判决2013年，美国纽约南区联邦法院作出判决，认为谷歌公司未经授权扫描和上传图书的行为侵犯了版权人的复制权和公开传播权。

然而，法庭同时认为，谷歌公司对图书的搜索和引用功能属于合理使用，不构成侵权。

三、案例分析1. 版权侵权本案中，谷歌公司未经授权扫描和上传图书的行为侵犯了版权人的复制权和公开传播权。

根据美国版权法，未经版权人许可，他人不得复制、发行、出租、展示或公开表演受版权保护的作品。

2. 合理使用尽管谷歌公司的行为侵犯了版权人的复制权和公开传播权，但法庭认为其构成合理使用。

合理使用是美国版权法中的一项重要原则，旨在平衡版权人与公众之间的利益。

根据美国版权法，以下几种情况属于合理使用：（1）批评、评论、新闻报道等目的；（2）学术或研究目的；（3）图书馆、档案馆、教育机构等公共利益目的。

在本案中，谷歌公司利用图书进行搜索和引用，旨在为公众提供便捷的搜索服务，符合合理使用的原则。

四、启示美国诉谷歌公司侵犯版权案对数字版权保护产生了深远的影响。

第1篇一、背景1945年，第二次世界大战结束，纳粹德国的罪行昭然若揭。

为了审判这些战争罪犯，国际社会成立了纽伦堡军事法庭。

纽伦堡审判是世界法律史上的一次重要事件，它不仅是对纳粹德国战争罪犯的审判，也是对人类法律正义的捍卫。

二、案件概述纽伦堡审判主要审理了以下几类案件：1. 纳粹德国的战争罪行：包括侵略战争、战争罪行、反人类罪等。

2. 纳粹德国的战争犯罪集团：包括纳粹党、冲锋队、党卫队等。

3. 纳粹德国的战争罪犯：包括希特勒、戈林、莱伊、弗兰克等。

三、审判过程1. 成立法庭：1945年11月，国际军事法庭在德国纽伦堡成立，由美、英、苏、法四国代表组成。

2. 审判程序：审判分为三个阶段：起诉、审理、判决。

3. 起诉：起诉方提交了大量的证据，包括纳粹德国的文件、照片、证言等。

4. 审理：法庭对案件进行了详细的审理，包括对证人的询问、对被告的质证等。

5. 判决：法庭根据审理结果，对被告进行了判决。

四、审判结果1. 纳粹德国的战争罪行：法庭认定纳粹德国犯有侵略战争、战争罪行、反人类罪等。

2. 纳粹德国的战争犯罪集团：法庭认定纳粹党、冲锋队、党卫队等犯有战争罪行。

3. 纳粹德国的战争罪犯：法庭对被告进行了判决，其中戈林、莱伊、弗兰克等人被判处死刑。

五、历史意义1. 纽伦堡审判为世界法律史树立了一个里程碑，它标志着人类对战争罪行的审判进入了一个新的阶段。

2. 纽伦堡审判确立了反人类罪、战争罪等国际罪行，为后来的国际刑事法庭提供了法律依据。

3. 纽伦堡审判对国际法的形成和发展产生了深远影响，推动了国际刑事司法的合作与交流。

4. 纽伦堡审判为世界和平与正义做出了重要贡献，为后世树立了法治的典范。

六、总结纽伦堡审判是世界法律史上的一次经典案例，它不仅是对纳粹德国战争罪犯的审判，更是对人类法律正义的捍卫。

纽伦堡审判的审判结果和意义，对后世产生了深远的影响，为世界和平与正义做出了重要贡献。

在当今世界，我们应铭记历史，珍惜和平，共同维护国际法的尊严和权威。

美国的审判制度——美国司法制度简介之三发布时间：2008-12-02 15:33:20一、美国民事审判制度美国联邦法院审理民事案件实行三级二审终审制。

一般民事案件由联邦地区法院作为初审法院，当事人不服初审法院的判决，可以向联邦上诉法院提起上诉。

如对法院适用的法律有异议，可以向联邦最高法院提出司法审查的请求。

在美国法律中，民事案件是指公民、法人之间的索赔或者要求补救的纠纷。

民事诉讼往往是因一方当事人的违约行为或者不法行为或者民事侵权行为所引起的。

由于美国是一个成文法和判例法并存的普通法系国家，因此在民事审判制度中许多内容是由法院的判例所确认的，而不同于其它成文法国家，凭借一部完整的民事诉讼法，确认该国的民事审判制度。

从美国的联邦民事诉讼程序规则和民事判例看，其民事审判制度大致如下。

（一）起诉与受理如果公民或法人认为自己已经受到其它公民或法人的不法侵犯或损害，他就开始去聘请律师，并向律师陈述自己起诉的理由及有关情况。

在接受当事人的聘请之后，律师就开始着手调查，会见证人，查看有关法令或法院的判例，以决定当事人是否有理由起诉。

如果认为当事人起诉理由充分，且又有足够的法律依据，律师便决定起草起诉书。

起诉书必须列举出明确的被告人，提出充分的事实根据和法律根据。

律师必须选择适当的法院进行起诉，原告律师还必须向法庭书记官提出关于要求发出传票的命令状，请求法庭书记官发出传票，或通知、指示司法行政长官将起诉书副本送达被告人。

司法行政长官将传票送达被告人后，必须将传票的原本送返法院，并向法院说明送达传票的主要情况。

送达传票是向被告人发出的诉讼正式通知诉讼就从提交起诉书和送达传票开始。

法院受理案件的条件是，法院必须能够对被告人实行控制，或者与案件有关的财产必须坐落在该法院的管辖区域内。

也就是说，有些诉讼是采用属人原则，只要找到被告人并送达传票的任何州的任何地区都可以起诉。

例如，人身伤害案件，就是由被告人所在地法院受理。

美国纽约州南区联邦地区法院判决（中英⽂本与注释）（⼀）从今天起将不定期发布美国联邦地区法院判决书的英⽂版及其翻译，欢迎指正。

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK-------------------------------------------------------xUNITED STATES,v. No. 10CR228-LTSDANIEL BONVENTRE. et al.,-------------------------------------------------------x纽约州南区美国联邦地区法院[1]-------------------------------------------------------x美利坚合众国诉案号：10CR228-LTS丹尼尔•布恩⽂切等-------------------------------------------------------xOPINION AND ORDER[2]意见与判决APPEARANCES:出庭⼈员：UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE[3], LAW OFFICES OF ANDREWSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK J. FRISCH[4]纽约州南区 ANDREW J. FRISCH律师事务所美国联邦检察官办公室By: Matthew L. Schwartz, Esq.[5] By: Andrew J. Frisch, Esq.John T. Zach, Esq. Jeremy B. Sporn, Esq.Randall W. Jackson, Esq. Amanda Bassen, Esq.代表：Matthew L. Schwartz律师代表：Andrew J. Frisch律师John T. Zach律师 Jeremy B. Sporn律师Randall W. Jackson律师 Amanda Bassen律师One St. Andrew’s Plaza 40 Fulton Street, 23rd FloorNew York, NY 10007 New York, NY 10038Counsel for Daniel BonventreDaniel Bonventre的律师-and-与SERCARZ & RIOPELLE, LLP[6]By: Roland G. Riopelle, Esq.SERCARZ & RIOPELLE律师事务所代表：Roland G. Riopelle律师810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019Counsel for Annette BongiornoAnnette Bongiorno的律师-and-与DUANE MORRIS, LLP (NJ)By Eric R. Breslin, Esq.Melissa S. Geller, Esq.DUANE MORRIS律师事务所（新泽西州）代表：Eric R. Breslin律师Melissa S. Geller律师One Riverfront Plaza1037 Raymond Blvd., Suite 1800Newark, NJ 07102Counsel for Jo Ann CrupiJo Ann Crupi的律师LAW OFFICES OF GORDONMEHLER, PLLC[7]By: Gordon Mehler, Esq.Sarah Lum, Esq.GORDON MEHLER律师事务所代表：Gordon Mehler律师Sarah Lum律师747 Third Avenue, 32nd FloorNew York, NY 10019Counsel for Jerome O’HaraJerome O’Hara的律师-and-与KRANTZ AND BERMAN, LLPBy Larry H. Krantz, Esq.Kimberly A. Yuhas, Esq.KRANTZ AND BERMAN律师事务所代表：Larry H. Krantz律师Kimberly A. Yuhas律师747 Third Avenue, 32nd FloorNew York, NY 10017Counsel for George PerezGeorge Perez的律师LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE美国联邦地区法官劳拉•泰勒•斯韦恩After a more than five month trial, thirty-one counts of the above-captioned[8] Superseding Indictment[9] were submitted to the jury, and Defendants Daniel Bonventre (“Bonventre”), Annette Bongiorno (“Bongiorno”), Jo Ann Crupi (“Crupi”), Jerome O’Hara (“O’Hara”) and George Perez (“Perez,” collectively, “Defendants”) were convicted of each of the crimes with which they were charged. The charges included: conspiracy to defraud investment advisory clients and conspiracy to commit securities fraud; conspiracy to engage in accounting fraud and to defraud banks; conspiracy to commit tax fraud; securities fraud; falsifying the records of a broker-dealer; falsifying the records of an investment adviser; causing a false and misleading filing to be made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); bank fraud; making and subscribing to false income tax returns; corruptly obstructing the lawful administration of the internal revenue laws; and tax evasion. Fewer than all of the Defendants were charged in some of the counts.经过五个多⽉的审理，在向陪审团提交上⽂⽂⾸所述替代起诉书的三⼗⼀项指控罪⾏后，被告丹尼尔•布恩⽂切（“布恩⽂切”）、安内特•布恩乔诺（“布恩乔诺”）、乔•安•克鲁⽪（“克鲁⽪”）、杰洛⽶•欧哈拉（“欧哈拉”）和乔治•佩雷兹（“佩雷兹”，上述⼈员合称“被告”）被判犯有各⾃被指控的每⼀项罪⾏。

美国的审判制度——美国司法制度简介之三发布时间：2008-12-02 15:33:20一、美国民事审判制度美国联邦法院审理民事案件实行三级二审终审制。

一般民事案件由联邦地区法院作为初审法院，当事人不服初审法院的判决，可以向联邦上诉法院提起上诉。

如对法院适用的法律有异议，可以向联邦最高法院提出司法审查的请求。

在美国法律中，民事案件是指公民、法人之间的索赔或者要求补救的纠纷。

民事诉讼往往是因一方当事人的违约行为或者不法行为或者民事侵权行为所引起的。

由于美国是一个成文法和判例法并存的普通法系国家，因此在民事审判制度中许多内容是由法院的判例所确认的，而不同于其它成文法国家，凭借一部完整的民事诉讼法，确认该国的民事审判制度。

从美国的联邦民事诉讼程序规则和民事判例看，其民事审判制度大致如下。

（一）起诉与受理如果公民或法人认为自己已经受到其它公民或法人的不法侵犯或损害，他就开始去聘请律师，并向律师陈述自己起诉的理由及有关情况。

在接受当事人的聘请之后，律师就开始着手调查，会见证人，查看有关法令或法院的判例，以决定当事人是否有理由起诉。

如果认为当事人起诉理由充分，且又有足够的法律依据，律师便决定起草起诉书。

起诉书必须列举出明确的被告人，提出充分的事实根据和法律根据。

律师必须选择适当的法院进行起诉，原告律师还必须向法庭书记官提出关于要求发出传票的命令状，请求法庭书记官发出传票，或通知、指示司法行政长官将起诉书副本送达被告人。

司法行政长官将传票送达被告人后，必须将传票的原本送返法院，并向法院说明送达传票的主要情况。

送达传票是向被告人发出的诉讼正式通知诉讼就从提交起诉书和送达传票开始。

法院受理案件的条件是，法院必须能够对被告人实行控制，或者与案件有关的财产必须坐落在该法院的管辖区域内。

也就是说，有些诉讼是采用属人原则，只要找到被告人并送达传票的任何州的任何地区都可以起诉。

例如，人身伤害案件，就是由被告人所在地法院受理。

1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSyllabusTHOMPSON v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LPCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE SIXTH CIRCUITNo. 09–291. Argued December 7, 2010—Decided January 24, 2011 After petitioner Thompson’s fiancée, Miriam Regalado, filed a sex dis­crimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com­mission (EEOC) against their employer, respondent North American Stainless (NAS), NAS fired Thompson. He filed his own charge and a subsequent suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that NAS fired him to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge. The District Court granted NAS summary judgment on the ground that third-party retaliation claims were not permitted by Title VII, which prohibits discrimination against an employee “because he has made a [Title VII] charge,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), and which per­mits, inter alia, a “person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by [an] alleged employment practice” to file a civil action, §2000e–5(f)(1). The en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Thompson was not enti­tled to sue NAS for retaliation because he had not engaged in any ac­tivity protected by the statute.Held:1. If the facts Thompson alleges are true, his firing by NAS consti­tuted unlawful retaliation. Title VII’s antiretaliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53. It prohibits any employer ac­tion that “ ‘well might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a [discrimination] charge,” ’” id., at 68. That test must be applied in an objective fashion, to “avoi[d] the uncertain­ties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to de­termine a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings.” Id., at 68–69. A reasonable worker obviously might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired. Pp. 2–4.2. Title VII grants Thompson a cause of action. Pp. 4–7.2 THOMPSONv. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LPSyllabus(a) For Title VII standing purposes, the term “person aggrieved” must be construed more narrowly than the outer boundaries of Arti­cle III. Dictum in Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, suggesting that Title VII’s aggrievement requirement reaches as far as Article III permits, is too expansive and the Court declines to follow it. At the other extreme, limiting “person aggrieved” to the person who was the subject of unlawful retaliation is an artificially narrow reading. A common usage of the term “person aggrieved” avoids both of these extremes. The Administrative Procedure Act, which authorizes suit to challenge a federal agency by any “person . . . adversely affected or aggrieved . . . within the meaning of a rele­vant statute,” 5 U. S. C. §702, establishes a regime under which a plaintiff may not sue unless he “falls within the ‘zone of interests’sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint,” Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871, 883. Title VII’s term “aggrieved” incorpo­rates that test, enabling suit by any plaintiff with an interest “ ‘ar­guably [sought] to be protected’ by the statutes,” National Credit Un-ion Admin. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 522 U. S. 479, 495, while excluding plaintiffs who might technically be injured in an Article III sense but whose interests are unrelated to Title VII’s statutory pro­hibitions. Pp. 4–7.(b) Applying that test here, Thompson falls within the zone of in­terests protected by Title VII. He was an employee of NAS, and Title VII’s purpose is to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions. Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which NAS punished Regalado. Thus, Thompson is a person aggrieved with standing to sue under Title VII. P. 7.567 F. 3d 804, reversed and remanded.S CALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except K AGAN, J., who took no part in the considera­tion or decision of the case. G INSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which B REYER, J., joined.__________________________________Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011)1Opinion of the CourtNOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash­ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 09–291ERIC L. THOMPSON, PETITIONER v. NORTHAMERICAN STAINLESS, LPON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT[January 24, 2011]J USTICE S CALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.Until 2003, both petitioner Eric Thompson and his fiancée, Miriam Regalado, were employees of respondent North American Stainless (NAS). In February 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)notified NAS that Regalado had filed a charge alleging sex discrimination. Three weeks later, NAS fired Thompson. Thompson then filed a charge with the EEOC. After conciliation efforts proved unsuccessful, he sued NAS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq ., claiming that NAS had fired him in order to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge with the EEOC. The District Court granted summary judgment to NAS, concluding that Title VII “does not permit third party retaliation claims.” 435 F. Supp. 2d 633, 639 (ED Ky. 2006). After a panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court, the Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and affirmed by a 10-to-6 vote.567 F. 3d 804 (2009). The court reasoned that because Thompson did not “engag[e] in any statutorily protected2 THOMPSONv. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LPOpinion of the Courtactivity, either on his own behalf or on behalf of Miriam Regalado,” he “is not included in the class of persons for whom Congress created a retaliation cause of action.” Id., at 807–808.We granted certiorari. 561 U. S. ___ (2010).ITitle VII provides that “[i]t shall be an unlawful em­ployment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has made a charge” under Title VII. 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a). The statute permits “a person claiming to be aggrieved” to file a charge with the EEOC alleging that the employer committed an unlawful employment practice, and, if the EEOC declines to sue the employer, it permits a civil action to “be brought . . . by the person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by the al­leged unlawful employment practice.” §2000e–5(b), (f)(1).It is undisputed that Regalado’s filing of a charge with the EEOC was protected conduct under Title VII. In the procedural posture of this case, we are also required to assume that NAS fired Thompson in order to retaliate against Regalado for filing a charge of discrimination. This case therefore presents two questions: First, did NAS’s firing of Thompson constitute unlawful retaliation? And second, if it did, does Title VII grant Thompson a cause of action?IIWith regard to the first question, we have little diffi­culty concluding that if the facts alleged by Thompson are true, then NAS’s firing of Thompson violated Title VII. In Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53 (2006), we held that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. We reached that conclusion by contrasting the text of Title3Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011)Opinion of the CourtVII’s antiretaliation provision with its substantive antidis­crimination provision. Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin “‘with respect to . . . compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,’” and discriminatory practices that would “‘deprive any individual of employment oppor­tunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.’” Id., at 62 (quoting 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a) (emphasis deleted)). In contrast, Title VII’s antiretaliation provision prohibits an employer from “‘discriminat[ing] against any of his employees’” for engaging in protected conduct, without specifying the employer acts that are prohibited. 548 U. S., at 62 (quoting §2000e–3(a) (empha­sis deleted)). Based on this textual distinction and our understanding of the antiretaliation provision’s purpose, we held that “the antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employ­ment.” Id., at 64. Rather, Title VII’s antiretaliation pro­vision prohibits any employer action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id., at 68 (internal quotation marks omitted).We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired. Indeed, NAS does not dispute that Thompson’s firing meets the standard set forth in Burlington. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. NAS raises the concern, however, that prohibiting reprisals against third parties will lead to difficult line-drawing problems con­cerning the types of relationships entitled to protection. Perhaps retaliating against an employee by firing his fiancée would dissuade the employee from engaging in protected activity, but what about firing an employee’s girlfriend, close friend, or trusted co-worker? Applying the Burlington standard to third-party reprisals, NAS argues,4 THOMPSONv. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LPOpinion of the Courtwill place the employer at risk any time it fires any em­ployee who happens to have a connection to a different employee who filed a charge with the EEOC.Although we acknowledge the force of this point, we do not think it justifies a categorical rule that third-party reprisals do not violate Title VII. As explained above, we adopted a broad standard in Burlington because Title VII’s antiretaliation provision is worded broadly. We think there is no textual basis for making an exception to it for third-party reprisals, and a preference for clear rules cannot justify departing from statutory text.We must also decline to identify a fixed class of relation­ships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful. We expect that firing a close family member will almost al­ways meet the Burlington standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize. As we explained in Burlington, 548 U. S., at 69, “the signifi­cance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances.” Given the broad statutory text and the variety of workplace contexts in which re­taliation may occur, Title VII’s antiretaliation provision is simply not reducible to a comprehensive set of clear rules. We emphasize, however, that “the provision’s standard for judging harm must be objective,” so as to “avoi[d] the uncertainties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to determine a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings.” Id., at 68–69.IIIThe more difficult question in this case is whether Thompson may sue NAS for its alleged violation of Title VII. The statute provides that “a civil action may be brought . . . by the person claiming to be aggrieved.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–5(f)(1). The Sixth Circuit concluded that this provision was merely a reiteration of the requirement5Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011)Opinion of the Courtthat the plaintiff have Article III standing. 567 F. 3d, at 808, n. 1. We do not understand how that can be. The provision unquestionably permits a person “claiming to be aggrieved” to bring “a civil action.” It is arguable that the aggrievement referred to is nothing more than the mini­mal Article III standing, which consists of injury in fact caused by the defendant and remediable by the court. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992). But Thompson’s claim undoubtedly meets those requirements, so if that is indeed all that aggrievement consists of, he may sue.We have suggested in dictum that the Title VII ag­grievement requirement conferred a right to sue on all who satisfied Article III standing. Trafficante v. Metro-politan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205 (1972), involved the “person aggrieved” provision of Title VIII (the Fair Hous­ing Act) rather than Title VII. In deciding the case, how­ever, we relied upon, and cited with approval, a Third Circuit opinion involving Title VII, which, we said, “con­cluded that the words used showed ‘a congressional intention to define standing as broadly as is permitted by Article III of the Constitution.’ ” Id., at 209 (quoting Hackett v. McGuire Bros., Inc., 445 F. 2d 442, 446 (1971)). We think that dictum regarding Title VII was too expan­sive. Indeed, the Trafficante opinion did not adhere to it in expressing its Title VIII holding that residents of an apartment complex could sue the owner for his racial discrimination against prospective tenants. The opinion said that the “person aggrieved” of Title VIII was coexten­sive with Article III “insofar as tenants of the same hous-ing unit that is charged with discrimination are con-cerned.” 409 U. S., at 209 (emphasis added). Later opinions, we must acknowledge, reiterate that the term “aggrieved” in Title VIII reaches as far as Article III per­mits, see Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 165–166 (1997); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91,6 THOMPSONv. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LPOpinion of the Court109 (1979), though the holdings of those cases are com­patible with the “zone of interests” limitation that we discuss below. In any event, it is Title VII rather than Title VIII that is before us here, and as to that we are surely not bound by the Trafficante dictum.We now find that this dictum was ill-considered, and we decline to follow it. If any person injured in the Article III sense by a Title VII violation could sue, absurd conse­quences would follow. For example, a shareholder would be able to sue a company for firing a valuable employee for racially discriminatory reasons, so long as he could show that the value of his stock decreased as a consequence. At oral argument Thompson acknowledged that such a suit would not lie, Tr. of Oral Arg. 5–6. We agree, and there­fore conclude that the term “aggrieved” must be construed more narrowly than the outer boundaries of Article III.At the other extreme from the position that “person aggrieved” means anyone with Article III standing, NAS argues that it is a term of art that refers only to the em­ployee who engaged in the protected activity. We know of no other context in which the words carry this artificially narrow meaning, and if that is what Congress intended it would more naturally have said “person claiming to have been discriminated against” rather than “person claiming to be aggrieved.” We see no basis in text or prior practice for limiting the latter phrase to the person who was the subject of unlawful retaliation. Moreover, such a reading contradicts the very holding of Trafficante, which was that residents of an apartment complex were “person[s] ag­grieved” by discrimination against prospective tenants. We see no reason why the same phrase in Title VII should be given a narrower meaning.In our view there is a common usage of the term “person aggrieved” that avoids the extremity of equating it with Article III and yet is fully consistent with our application of the term in Trafficante. The Administrative Procedure7Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011)Opinion of the CourtAct, 5 U. S. C. §551 et seq., authorizes suit to challenge a federal agency by any “person . . . adversely affected or aggrieved . . . within the meaning of a relevant statute.” §702. We have held that this language establishes a regime under which a plaintiff may not sue unless he “falls within the ‘zone of interests’ sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint.” Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed-eration, 497 U. S. 871, 883 (1990). We have described the “zone of interests” test as denying a right of review “if the plaintiff’s interests are so marginally related to or in­consistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388, 399–400 (1987). We hold that the term “ag­grieved” in Title VII incorporates this test, enabling suit by any plaintiff with an interest “arguably [sought] to be protected by the statutes,” National Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 522 U. S. 479, 495 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), while excluding plain­tiffs who might technically be injured in an Article III sense but whose interests are unrelated to the statutory prohibitions in Title VII.Applying that test here, we conclude that Thompson falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII. Thompson was an employee of NAS, and the purpose of Title VII is to protect employees from their employers’unlawful actions. Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation—collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer’s unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming Regalado. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her. In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII. He is a person aggrieved with standing to sue.8 THOMPSONv. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LPOpinion of the Court* * *The judgment of the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.It is so ordered. J USTICE K AGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case._________________ _________________ 1Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011)G INSBURG, J., concurringSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 09–291ERIC L. THOMPSON, PETITIONER v. NORTHAMERICAN STAINLESS, LPON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT[January 24, 2011]J USTICE G INSBURG, with whom J USTICE B REYER joins, concurring.I join the Court’s opinion, and add a fortifying observa-tion: Today’s decision accords with the longstanding views of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that administers Title VII. In its Compliance Manual, the EEOC counsels that Title VII “prohibit[s] retaliation against someone so closely related to or associated with the person exercising his or her statutory rights that it would discourage or prevent the person from pursuing those rights.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12–13 (quoting EEOC Compli-ance Manual §8–II(C)(3) (1998)). Such retaliation “can be challenged,” the Manual affirms, “by both the individual who engaged in protected activity and the relative, where both are employees.” Id., at 25–26 (quoting Compliance Manual §8–II(B)(3)(c)). The EEOC’s statements in the Manual merit deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134 (1944). See Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U. S. 389, 399–400 (2008). The EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII, I further note, is consistent with interpretations of analogous statutes by other federal agencies. See, e.g., NLRB v. Advertisers Mfg. Co., 823 F. 2d 1086, 1088–1089 (CA7 1987) (adopting NLRB’s position that retaliation against a relative violates the Nationalv. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP2 THOMPSONG INSBURG, J., concurringLabor Relations Act); Tasty Baking Co. v. NLRB, 254 F. 3d 114, 127–128 (CADC 2001) (same), cited in Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 11.。

第1篇一、案件背景美国诉麦克劳德案（United States v. McLeod）是美国最高法院在1991年审理的一起涉及联邦法律与州法律冲突的案件。

该案的主要争议焦点是：联邦法律与州法律在管辖权上是否可以相互冲突，以及如何确定联邦法律在管辖权上的优先性。

二、案件事实1990年，美国联邦政府颁布了《犯罪控制法》（Crime Control Act），该法规定：任何在美国境内进行的电信诈骗行为，无论诈骗金额大小，都将受到联邦法律的管辖。

然而，麦克劳德（McLeod）等人在1990年至1991年间，在美国境内通过电话诈骗的方式，骗取了大量资金。

美国联邦政府据此将麦克劳德等人起诉，指控他们违反了《犯罪控制法》。

麦克劳德等人辩称，根据美国宪法第十修正案的规定，联邦政府只能在宪法授权的范围内行使权力，而电信诈骗行为属于州政府的管辖范围。

因此，联邦政府的指控违反了宪法规定，应当被驳回。

三、法院判决美国最高法院在审理此案时，首先明确了宪法第十修正案的规定，即“宪法赋予联邦政府的权力，以及宪法没有禁止各州行使的权力，都归各州所有”。

接着，法院分析了电信诈骗行为的性质，认为电信诈骗行为既涉及电信技术，又涉及诈骗犯罪，因此既属于电信行业的范畴，又属于犯罪行为的范畴。

在此基础上，法院认为，联邦政府有权根据宪法授权，对电信行业进行监管，包括电信诈骗行为的监管。

同时，联邦政府有权根据宪法授权，对犯罪行为进行监管，包括电信诈骗行为的监管。

因此，联邦政府关于电信诈骗行为的管辖权，并不违反宪法第十修正案的规定。

法院最终判决，联邦政府的指控成立，麦克劳德等人犯有电信诈骗罪，应当受到相应的刑事处罚。

四、案例分析1. 联邦法律与州法律的关系美国诉麦克劳德案反映了联邦法律与州法律在管辖权上的冲突。

在美国，联邦法律与州法律的关系是相互独立、相互制约的。

一方面，联邦政府拥有一定的立法权力，可以对全国范围内的某些领域进行监管；另一方面，各州政府也拥有一定的立法权力，可以对本州范围内的某些领域进行监管。

第1篇一、案件背景1973年，英国一名男子名叫Kean，因涉嫌谋杀被起诉。

在审判过程中，Kean的律师提出了一个争议性极强的辩护策略，即“双重代理”理论。

根据这一理论，Kean 声称他在犯罪时处于一种“双重代理”的状态，即他的行为实际上是在代表他的律师进行的一种模拟犯罪。

因此，他不应被认定为犯罪。

二、案件审理案件审理过程中，法官和陪审团对“双重代理”理论进行了深入的讨论。

法官表示，根据英国法律，如果一个人能够证明他的行为是在模拟犯罪，即他实际上是在代表他人进行犯罪，那么他不应被认定为犯罪。

然而，陪审团在讨论过程中出现了分歧。

三、判决结果最终，陪审团根据法官的指导，认定Kean的行为不属于模拟犯罪，而是真实犯罪。

因此，陪审团裁定Kean有罪，他被判处有期徒刑。

四、案例分析1. 双重代理理论的争议性“双重代理”理论在英国法律史上具有争议性。

一方面，该理论体现了英国法律对代理关系的严格规定，强调代理人在代理过程中应保持忠诚和诚实。

另一方面，该理论在司法实践中容易导致滥用，为犯罪分子提供逃避法律制裁的借口。

2. 案件审理过程中的争议在审理过程中，法官和陪审团对“双重代理”理论产生了分歧。

法官认为，根据英国法律，只有当犯罪嫌疑人的行为确实是在代表他人进行犯罪时，才能认定其无罪。

然而，陪审团在讨论过程中，部分成员认为Kean的行为虽然具有争议性，但并非完全属于模拟犯罪，因此应判定其有罪。

3. 判决结果的合理性判决结果在一定程度上体现了英国法律的严谨性。

首先，判决结果表明英国法律对代理关系的严格规定，强调代理人在代理过程中应保持忠诚和诚实。

其次，判决结果避免了“双重代理”理论在司法实践中的滥用，维护了法律的公正性和严肃性。

五、启示1. 法律的严谨性该案例表明，英国法律在审理案件时，注重法律的严谨性和公正性。

在审理过程中，法官和陪审团对争议性极强的理论进行了深入的讨论，最终做出了合理的判决。

2. 代理关系的规范该案例提醒我们，代理关系在法律实践中具有重要意义。

尼克斯诉威廉姆斯案与“必然发现”例外“必然发现”例外，亦称“不可避免地发现”例外或“假设的独立来源”例外，是美国联邦最高法院在1984年的尼克斯诉威廉姆斯案（Nix v. Williams，467 U.S. 431）案的裁决中认可的。

根据这一例外，某项原来非法获得的证据如果能够通过其他合法调查途径“必然”被发现，那么它就具有可采性。

“必然发现”例外通常适用于非法获得的枪械证据或尸体证据等实物证据。

一、判例溯源一个10岁的小女孩帕梅拉（Pamela）在美国爱荷华州的戴斯莫尼斯（Des Moines）失踪，警察在迪文波特（Davenport）逮捕了犯罪嫌疑人威廉姆斯，并通知其律师要把犯罪嫌疑人带回戴斯莫尼斯，但不会对他进行讯问。

在押解途中，其中一个警察对被告人说：“天气预报说今晚会下几英寸厚的大雪……尸体一旦被雪覆盖就很难再找到了……待会儿路过那个（尸体所在的）地方时，我们会下车寻找，小女孩的父母有权为她举行一个基督教葬礼……你不用回答我的问题……考虑一下吧。

”最后，威廉姆斯指引警察找到了被害人的尸体。

与此同时，一场包括200名志愿者的大规模分组搜索行动正在进行，当行动因被告人的指引而结束时，其中一组搜索人员距尸体的位置只有2.5英里。

威廉姆斯被指控犯有谋杀罪。

庭审中，被告一方主张，作为被告人供述的“毒树之果”，警察寻获的尸体以及相关证据（包括鉴定所得的尸体状况）都应当被排除，爱荷华州初审法院驳回了这一动议，陪审团遂裁决被告人有罪。

被告人上诉至州最高法院，也被维持原判。

在对该案的第二次审判中，威廉姆斯再次向联邦地区法院寻求人身保护令救济，该法院驳回了他的申请，但美国第八巡回上诉法院在接下来的审理中推翻了这一判决，理由是：“必然发现”例外的适用必须以警察没有“恶意”(bad faith)为前提，而法院纪录并不能支持该项事实（即警察并非以恶意行为取得证据）。

案件最后诉至美国联邦最高法院。

二、美国联邦最高法院的判决（一）多数意见以首席大法官伯格（Burger）为代表的多数意见认为，本案中，与被害人尸体的发现及状况有关的证据是可采的，因为在不违反宪法性条款的情况下，这些证据也将最终、不可避免地被发现。

第1篇一、案例背景1972年6月17日，美国水门事件爆发。

该事件涉及美国共和党总统尼克松及其助手非法闯入民主党全国委员会总部，并在此过程中窃取了文件和监听设备。

水门事件成为美国历史上最大的政治丑闻之一，引发了美国社会对政府诚信和权力的广泛质疑。

二、案例争议水门事件爆发后，美国联邦调查局（FBI）开始对相关人员进行调查。

1973年，水门事件的主要涉案人员之一、尼克松的前竞选顾问约翰·埃利希曼（John Ehrlichman）因涉嫌妨碍司法公正而被起诉。

在此过程中，美国司法部要求尼克松交出与水门事件相关的录音带，以供调查。

然而，尼克松以行政特权为由拒绝交出录音带。

美国司法部随后向美国联邦法院提起诉讼，要求法院判决尼克松交出录音带。

三、法院判决美国联邦法院审理了此案，并作出了如下判决：1. 行政特权不能成为拒绝交出录音带的理由。

2. 尼克松必须交出录音带，以供调查。

3. 法院有权对录音带进行审查，以确保录音带内容与调查无关。

四、案例分析1. 行政特权在美国法律体系中具有重要地位。

然而，行政特权并非绝对，不能用于阻碍司法公正。

在本案中，法院认为，尼克松以行政特权为由拒绝交出录音带，违背了司法公正原则。

2. 行政特权与个人隐私权、国家利益等原则存在冲突。

在本案中，法院权衡了各方利益，最终作出了有利于司法公正的判决。

3. 本案对美国政治和法律体系产生了深远影响。

水门事件使得美国民众对政府诚信和权力产生了怀疑，促使美国加强了对政府权力制约的法律法规。

五、案例英译Case Name: United States v. NixonI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the groundsof executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusalto hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the interests of all parties and ultimately made a judgment in favor of judicial fairness.3. This case had a profound impact on the American political and legal system. The Watergate Scandal led the American public to question the integrity and power of the government, prompting the United States to strengthen laws and regulations on the restriction of government power.V. English TranslationI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusal to hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the interests of all parties and ultimately made a judgment in favor of judicial fairness.3. This case had a profound impact on the American political and legal system. The Watergate Scandal led the American public to question the integrity and power of the government, prompting the United States to strengthen laws and regulations on the restriction of government power.V. English TranslationI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic NationalCommittee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the groundsof executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusalto hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the interests of all parties and ultimately made a judgment in favor of judicial fairness.3. This case had a profound impact on the American political and legal system. The Watergate Scandal led the American public to question the integrity and power of the government, prompting the United States to strengthen laws and regulations on the restriction of government power.V. English TranslationI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the groundsof executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusal to hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the interests of all parties and ultimately made a judgment in favor of judicial fairness.3. This case had a profound impact on the American political and legal system. The Watergate Scandal led the American public to question the integrity and power of the government, prompting the United States to strengthen laws and regulations on the restriction of government power.V. English TranslationI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the groundsof executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusalto hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the interests of all parties and ultimately made a judgment in favor of judicial fairness.3. This case had a profound impact on the American political and legal system. The Watergate Scandal led the American public to question theintegrity and power of the government, prompting the United States to strengthen laws and regulations on the restriction of government power.V. English TranslationI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the groundsof executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusalto hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the interests of all parties and ultimately made a judgment in favor of judicial fairness.3. This case had a profound impact on the American political and legal system. The Watergate Scandal led the American public to question the integrity and power of the government, prompting the United States to strengthen laws and regulations on the restriction of government power.V. English TranslationI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusal to hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the interests of all parties and ultimately made a judgment in favor of judicial fairness.3. This case had a profound impact on the American political and legal system. The Watergate Scandal led the American public to question the integrity and power of the government, prompting the United States to strengthen laws and regulations on the restriction of government power.V. English TranslationI. BackgroundOn June 17, 1972, the Watergate Scandal broke out in the United States. The scandal involved the illegal break-in of the Democratic NationalCommittee headquarters by the Republican Party, led by President Richard Nixon and his assistants, during which files and listening equipment were stolen. The Watergate Scandal became one of the biggest political scandals in American history and sparked widespread public concern about government integrity and power.II. ControversyAfter the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) began to investigate the relevant personnel. In 1973, one of the main suspects in the Watergate Scandal, John Ehrlichman,Nixon's former campaign advisor, was indicted on charges of obstructing justice. During this process, the U.S. Department of Justice requested that Nixon hand over the tape recordings related to the Watergate Scandal for investigation.However, Nixon refused to hand over the tape recordings on the groundsof executive privilege. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court, seeking a judgment that Nixon must hand over the tape recordings.III. Court DecisionThe U.S. federal court heard the case and made the following decisions:1. Executive privilege cannot be used as a reason to refuse to hand over the tape recordings.2. Nixon must hand over the tape recordings for investigation.3. The court has the right to review the tape recordings to ensure that the content is unrelated to the investigation.IV. Case Analysis1. Executive privilege plays an important role in the American legal system. However, executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. In this case, the court held that Nixon's refusalto hand over the tape recordings on the grounds of executive privilege violated the principle of judicial fairness.2. Executive privilege is in conflict with principles such as personal privacy and national interests. In this case, the court weighed the第2篇Case Summary:In the case of Johnson v. Smith, the plaintiff, Johnson, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Smith, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The case revolves around an agreement between the parties to build a residential property, which ultimately did not meet the agreed-upon standards.English Text:---Johnson v. SmithCourt of First InstanceCase No. 2021-12345Facts:The plaintiff, Johnson, entered into a contract with the defendant, Smith, in 2019. The contract was for the construction of a residential property at Johnson's residence. The agreement specified the scope of work, the quality of materials to be used, and the deadline for completion.According to the contract, the property was to be completed within six months from the date of the agreement. However, after the deadline, the property was not ready for occupancy. Johnson conducted a thorough inspection of the property and found several defects, including cracksin the walls, improper wiring, and substandard plumbing.Johnson notified Smith of the defects and requested that they be corrected. Smith acknowledged the issues but failed to rectify themwithin a reasonable time. As a result, Johnson hired a third-partycontractor to make the necessary repairs, which cost him an additional $15,000.Johnson brought a lawsuit against Smith, claiming negligence and breach of contract. He sought damages for the cost of repairs, as well as for the mental distress caused by the delays and substandard workmanship.Defendant's Argument:Smith argued that the defects were minor and that they did notconstitute a breach of contract. He further claimed that any defects were the result of unforeseen circumstances beyond his control and that he had acted diligently to correct the issues.Plaintiff's Argument:Johnson's attorney argued that the defects were significant and directly resulted from Smith's negligence. He contended that the contract clearly specified the standards to which the property was to be built, and that Smith failed to meet these standards. The attorney also emphasized that the delays and additional costs incurred were a direct consequence of Smith's breach of contract.Judgment:The court found in favor of Johnson on both counts of negligence and breach of contract. The court held that Smith's failure to meet the agreed-upon standards for the construction of the property was a clear breach of contract. Additionally, the court found that the defects were not minor and that they had caused Johnson significant distress and financial hardship.The court awarded Johnson damages in the amount of $15,000 for the cost of repairs and an additional $5,000 for mental distress. The court also ordered Smith to pay Johnson's legal fees, which were estimated to be $10,000.Conclusion:This case highlights the importance of clear and specific contracts in construction projects. It serves as a reminder to contractors and homeowners alike that failure to meet the agreed-upon standards can lead to legal action and significant financial consequences.---中文翻译：---约翰逊诉史密斯案初审法院案号：2021-12345事实：原告约翰逊于2019年与被告史密斯签订了合同，合同内容是在约翰逊的住所建造一栋住宅。

第1篇一、案例背景2000年，美国加利福尼亚州发生了一起因误导性言论引发的诉讼案件。

原告为一对夫妇，被告为一本名为《天然药物与营养补充品》的书籍的作者。

原告声称，被告在书中对某种营养补充品的功效进行了虚假宣传，导致他们误信并购买了该产品，结果夫妇二人因此遭受了严重的健康损害。

原告以误导性言论为由，将被告告上法庭。

二、案件审理1. 误导性言论的定义在审理过程中，法院首先明确了误导性言论的定义。

误导性言论是指那些可能误导消费者，导致消费者产生错误认知或做出错误决策的言论。

根据美国法律，误导性言论可能构成虚假广告或虚假陈述，从而对消费者造成损害。

2. 被告的辩护理由被告在法庭上辩称，其书中的言论并非误导性言论，而是基于科学研究得出的结论。

同时，被告还表示，消费者在购买营养补充品时，应当具备一定的判断能力，不能完全依赖书籍中的言论。

3. 法院判决经过审理，法院认为被告在书中对某种营养补充品的功效进行了虚假宣传，构成了误导性言论。

法院判决被告向原告支付赔偿金，并承担一定的诉讼费用。

三、案例分析1. 误导性言论的法律责任本案中，被告因误导性言论而承担了法律责任。

在美国，误导性言论可能涉及虚假广告、虚假陈述等违法行为，消费者可以依法追究相关责任人的法律责任。

2. 消费者权益保护本案体现了美国法律对消费者权益的保护。

在美国，消费者权益保护法律体系较为完善，消费者在遭受误导性言论侵害时，可以依法维护自己的合法权益。

3. 科学研究与误导性言论本案还引发了关于科学研究与误导性言论的讨论。

虽然被告声称其言论基于科学研究，但法院认为，科学研究结论并非绝对可靠，作者在宣传时应谨慎，避免误导消费者。

四、启示与思考1. 媒体与误导性言论本案提醒我们，媒体在宣传过程中应严格遵守法律法规，避免发布误导性言论。

同时，媒体还应加强对科学知识的普及，提高公众的科学素养。

2. 消费者权益保护意识消费者在购买商品或服务时，应提高警惕，增强辨别能力，避免因误导性言论而遭受损失。