法律翻译 |《哈佛法律评论》第133卷第3期目录+摘要

译者 | Eleanor 中国人民大学法硕

一审 | alex 中国政法大学硕士

二审 | 董辰 中国政法大学硕士

编辑 | 邹鹏 吉林大学法硕

责编 | 戚琳颖 大连海事大学本科

Justice John Paul Stevens

纪念John Paul Stevens法官

作者：Alison J. Nathan,

Christopher L. Eisgruber, David Barron,

Eduardo M. Peñalver, 

John G. Roberts Jr. & Olatunde C.A. Johnson

In his opening remarks on the first day of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Term, Chief Justice Roberts offered a tribute to Justice Stevens. His remembrance emphasized Justice Stevens’s lifelong commitment to public service and his imprint on the Court, his colleagues, and the country. We are grateful to Chief Justice Roberts for contributing those remarks to this collection. We provide an excerpt from his statement as an Introduction to the collection of Tributes that follows.

在最高法院2019年任期的开场致辞中，首席大法官Roberts向Stevens大法官表致以敬意。他在纪念致辞中强调了Stevens大法官为公共事业作出的终身贡献，以及他为最高法院、同事和这个国家留下的深刻影响。我们感谢首席大法官Roberts为本纪念文集贡献了评论。我们摘录了他的部分讲话内容，作为以下纪念文集的导言。

原文链接：

https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/memoriam-justice-john-paul-stevens/

Race, Pregnancy, and the Opioid Epidemic: White Privilege and the Criminalization of Opioid Use During Pregnancy

种族、怀孕和阿片类药物流行：白人特权以及怀孕期间阿片类药物使用行为的刑事定罪

作者：Khiara M. Bridges

Common formulations of the concept of white privilege propose that white privilege guarantees white people positive results. So, when bad things happen to white people — when the jobs and the industries on which they once relied disappear, when they are denied admission to their preferred university, when they lose a promotion to a nonwhite candidate, when they die from suicide and drug overdoses at unprecedented rates — we are left to believe that white people experiencing these adverse consequences did not have white privilege or that their white privilege did not work for them. That is, we are left to conclude that white privilege is meaningless when white disadvantage is present. Further, given the undeniable fact of widespread white disadvantage, we are left vulnerable to the claim that for many, if not most, white people, white privilege is inconsequential, insignificant, or altogether nonexistent.

通常来说，白人特权的概念会被理解为：白人特权保证了白人能够得到积极的结果。因此，当白人遭致不幸时——当他们失去曾经赖以生存的工作甚至行业时，当他们未被心仪大学录取时，当他们在职业晋升中落败于非白人候选人时，当他们因自杀、吸毒过量而死的比率达到前所未有的峰值时，我们不得不相信，经受这些不幸的白人并不拥有白人特权，或是白人特权在他们身上并不奏效。也即，我们能得出该种结论：当白人劣势存在时，白人特权是没有意义的。此外，毋庸置疑的是，白人劣势在现实中广泛存在，因此我们很容易产生该种认知：对许多甚至大多数白人而言，白人特权无足轻重，甚至全然不存在。

In reality, the fact of white privilege is much more complicated than this facile, mechanical formulation suggests. This Article proposes that we ought to understand white privilege to be something that can lead to unfavorable results just as capably as it can lead to favorable ones. That is, white privilege is a double-edged sword. Theorizing both edges of white privilege provides a more nuanced rendering of the concept. This complexly rendered formulation may help us understand how white privilege can coexist with white disadvantage. Indeed, it might help us understand how white privilege actively produces white disadvantage.

实际上，白人特权的准确含义比上述简单、机械的表述复杂得多。本文主张，白人特权既能导致不利后果，也能带来有利后果。也即，白人特权是一把双刃剑。对白人特权引发的两种效果进行理论化处理，可以更细致地阐释这一概念。采用该种复杂的表述，可能有助于我们理解白人特权如何与白人劣势同时存在。事实上，它可能有助于我们理解白人特权如何推动白人劣势的产生。

The Article uses the recent arrests and prosecutions of women for using opioids during their pregnancies as an opportunity to engage with and theorize the idea of white privilege. The analysis proceeds in four Parts. Part I explains the origins of the opioid epidemic as well as the government’s response to it, emphasizing that the current drug crisis has hit white people and white communities the hardest and, further, that pregnant women have not been immune from it. Part II explores how the State has responded to substance use during pregnancy. At times, the State has responded with its civil systems, choosing to involve the child welfare system and child protective services; at other times, it has responded with its criminal systems, choosing to arrest and prosecute women for using substances while pregnant. Part III then analyzes the demographics of these arrests and prosecutions. It explains that prosecuting women for substance use during pregnancy began in earnest in the 1980s and 1990s, when the crack cocaine scare gripped the nation. During this time, those who were prosecuted were largely black women. However, the opioid epidemic (and the methamphetamine scare before it) has hit white communities particularly hard. Consequently, the demographics of arrests and prosecutions for substance use during pregnancy have shifted, with white women coming to predominate among those subjected to penal state power. Part IV theorizes the significance of these shifted demographics — investigating what they might mean for the concept of white privilege. A brief Conclusion follows.

妇女可能因怀孕期间使用阿片类药物而被逮捕、起诉，本文以近期发生的该类案例作为切入口，对白人特权概念进行了理论研究。分析共分为四部分。第一部分解释了阿片类药物盛行的缘由，以及政府对之作出的反应，并强调了当下的药物危机对白人、白人社区的负面影响最大，即使孕妇也无法幸免。第二部分探讨了国家如何应对怀孕期间的药物使用问题。有时，国家通过儿童福利系统、儿童保护服务等民事途径进行应对；有时，国家采用逮捕、起诉使用药物的怀孕妇女等刑事手段进行应对。第三部分对逮捕、起诉对象进行了人口学分析，发现起诉使用药物的怀孕妇女的做法始于20世纪80年代和90年代，当时整个国家都被可卡因恐慌笼罩。该时期被起诉的主要是黑人妇女。然而，由于阿片类药物的流行（以及此前的甲基苯丙胺恐慌）对白人社区的负面影响尤为严重，相关人口学数据发生了变化——白人妇女逐渐成为因怀孕期间使用药物而被逮捕、起诉的主要群体。第四部分在理论层面阐述了前述变化的意义，并研究了相关数据对白人特权概念可能具有的影响。本文最后是一个简短的结论。

原文链接：

https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/race-pregnancy-and-the-opioid-epidemic-white-privilege-and-the-criminalization-of-opioid-use-during-pregnancy/ 

Neoclassical Administrative Law

新古典行政法

作者：Jeffrey A. Pojanowski

This Article introduces an approach to administrative law that reconciles a more formalist, classical understanding of law and its supremacy with the contemporary administrative state. Courts adopting this approach, which I call “neoclassical administrative law,” are skeptical of judicial deference on questions of law, tend to give more leeway to agencies on questions of policy, and attend more closely to statutes governing administrative procedure than contemporary doctrine does. As a result, neoclassical administrative law finds a place for both legislative supremacy and the rule of law within the administrative state, without subordinating either of those central values to the other. Such an approach reconciles traditional notions of the judicial role and separation of powers within the administrative state that Congress has chosen to construct and provides a clearer, more appealing allocation of responsibilities between courts and agencies. This theory is “classical” in its defense of the autonomy of law and legal reasoning, separation of powers, and the supremacy of law. These commitments distinguish it from theorists that would have courts make a substantial retreat in administrative law. It is “new” in that, unlike other more classical critiques of contemporary administrative law, it seeks to integrate those more formalist commitments with the administrative state we have today — and will have for the foreseeable future.

本文介绍了一种对行政法的理解进路，它基于一种对于“法律”更形式主义、更古典的理解，也确认了法律在当代行政国家中至高无上的地位。采用该种理论（我称之为“新古典行政法”）的法院，在法律问题上对司法尊让原则持怀疑态度，在政策问题上倾向于给予行政机构更多的回旋余地，并比当代学说更关注有关行政程序制定的规则。因此，新古典行政法在行政国家中为“立法至上”和“法治”都找到了位置，使得这些核心价值处于平等地位，没有任何一者需从属于另一者。国会构建起了行政国家内对于“司法权力”“权力分立”的传统观念，而该理论调和了前述二者的传统观念，并为法院和行政机构之间的责任分配提供了更清晰、更有吸引力的方式。该种理论的经典之处在于，其捍卫了法律及法律推理的自治性、分权理论以及法律至上原则，其不同于“法院应在行政法领域作出实质性让步”的观点。该种理论新颖之处在于，不同于其他对当代行政法更经典的批评，其试图将该种更浓重的形式主义色彩与我们当下——以及在可预见的未来——所处的行政国家结合起来。

原文链接：

https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/neoclassical-administrative-law/ 

The Lost History of the “Universal” Injunction

“普遍”禁令的失落历史

作者：Mila Sohoni

The issuance of injunctions that reach beyond just the plaintiffs has recently become the subject of a mounting wave of censorious commentary, including by members of Congress, a Supreme Court Justice, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, and the President. Critics of these “universal” injunctions have claimed that such injunctions are a recent invention and that they exceed the power conferred by Article III to decide “Cases[] in ... Equity.” This Article rebuts the proposition that the universal injunction is a recent invention and that it violates Article III or the traditional limits of equity as practiced in the federal courts. As far back as 1913, the Supreme Court itself enjoined federal officers from enforcing a federal statute not just against the plaintiff, but against anyone, until the Court had decided the case. If the Supreme Court can issue a universal injunction against enforcement of a federal law, then — as an Article III matter — so can a lower federal court. Moreover, lower federal courts have been issuing injunctions that reach beyond the plaintiffs as to state laws in cases that date back more than a century, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly approved of these injunctions. If Article III allows such injunctions as to state laws, it a fortiori allows such injunctions as to federal laws. Mapping these and other pieces of the lost history of the universal injunction, this Article demonstrates that the Article III objection to the universal injunction should be retired and that the unfolding efforts to outright strip the federal courts of the tool of the universal injunction — whether by statutory fiat or by a judicial redefinition of Article III — should halt.

近来，行为限制对象超出原告范围的禁令引发了热烈讨论，参与讨论的包括国会议员、最高法院法官、正副总检察长和总统等。前述评论声称，该种“普遍的”禁令是最近才被发明的，它超出了美国宪法第三条所赋予法院的“公正审理案件”的权力范围。本文对该种观点进行了反驳。早在1913年，最高法院就曾禁止联邦官员执行一项联邦法规，直到法院对该案作出裁判。显然，该禁令针对的不仅是原告，还是这个国家的所有公民。如果最高法院可以发布禁止执行联邦法律的普遍禁令，那么根据宪法第三条，下级联邦法院也有权发布。此外，在此前一个多世纪期间，下级联邦法院曾多次针对州法律发布该类禁令，而最高法院也多次批准了该类禁令。如果宪法第三条允许法院针对州法律发布该种禁令，则其当然允许法院针对联邦法律发布该种禁令。通过对普遍禁令相关历史的分析，本文表明，宪法第三条并不能为反对普遍禁令提供依据；且，无论通过法律规定的方式，还是对宪法第三条重新进行司法定义的方式，任何阻止联邦法院发布普遍禁令的做法均应被制止。

But I would speak to the consciences of honorable men, and ask, how they can venture… to recommend changes, which may cut deep into the quick of remedial justice…Surely, they need not be told, how slow every good system of laws must be in consolidating; and how easily the rashness of an hour may destroy, what ages have scarcely cemented in a solid form.

但我想向正直的人发问：他们怎能冒险......而建议修改？这可能会深刻影响补救性正义的快速发展......当然，也无需告诉他们，巩固一个好的法律体系的进展是多么缓慢；发展、积淀了多年但未被巩固、确认的司法成果，可能一个小时的草率就能轻易地摧毁它。

原文链接：

https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/the-lost-history-of-the-universal-injunction/