美国国家公共电台 NPR 美国最高法院驳回共和党对奥巴马医改的挑战（在线收听）

The U.S. Supreme Court today threw out the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, holding that the plaintiffs in the case lacked standing.

今天，美国最高法院驳回原告对《平价医疗法案》提出的质疑，认为此案原告缺乏立案资格。

The 7-2 opinion was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer,

最终结果为7票赞成、2票反对，意见书由大法官斯蒂芬·布雷耶撰写，

who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

首席法官约翰·罗伯茨以及大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根、布雷特·卡瓦诺和艾米·康尼·巴雷特与布雷耶持一样的观点。

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

而大法官塞缪尔·阿利托和尼尔·戈尔塞斯则持反对意见。

Joining us now to explain the ruling is NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. Hello, Nina.

下面NPR新闻法律事务记者尼娜·托滕伯格将带来详细解释。你好，尼娜。

Hey there.

你好。

So Nina, this is the third time the court has upheld the law. What was the case before the court about this time?

尼娜，这是最高法院第三次维持该法案。这次法庭审理的是什么案件？

Well, this was a challenge brought by states, principally by red states,

这是多州提出的挑战，主要由红州提出，

who claimed that they were being harmed by the Affordable Care Act under the mandate provision that was thrown out in 2012

他们声称，《平价医疗法案》中的强制条款对他们造成损害，该条款2012年遭遇的挑战被法院驳回，

and that the — that was unseverable from the rest of the law because it was totally intertwined with the law.

而且，这项条款与法案其他部分是不可分割的，因为其完全与法案交织在一起。

So even though the court upheld it, these states said, the whole law should now be struck down

因此，尽管法院支持这项条款，但这些州表示，现在应该废除整个法案，

because the mandate was actually eliminated by the Congress after it concluded four years into the law's experience that it was no longer necessary.

因为在法案实践四年后，国会废除了这项强制条款，因为该条款已不再必要。

And the Supreme Court said to the states and actually even a couple of individuals, sorry,

最高法院对提出诉讼的各州甚至几名个人表示，对不起，

you don't have any legal standing to challenge this law because you weren't injured at all.

你们根本没有任何法律资格来挑战这项法案，因为你们根本没有受到伤害。

You didn't have to pay anything. You can't show any injury. And therefore, we only decide actual cases where somebody has been harmed, and goodbye.

你们不用支付任何费用。你们也不能证明自已受到了伤害。因此，我们只确定有人受到伤害的实际案例，再见。

So then what are the implications of today's ruling?

那今天的裁决有何意义？

Well, over 31 million Americans access health insurance through the ACA and will now be able to continue to do so.

超过3100万美国人通过《平价医疗法案》获得了医疗保险，现在他们可以享有保险。

That 31 million is a record high. Many of the provisions of the ACA are now taken for granted and could have been struck down.

3100万这一数字创下参保人数最高记录。《平价医疗法案》中的许多条款现在被视为理所当然，但可能会被废除。

Up to 135 million people are covered by the ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions.

禁止歧视患有既往疾病患者的规定覆盖了多达1.35亿人。

Young adults are permitted to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26. Copays aren't permitted for preventive care.

年轻人可以在26岁之前继续享受父母的保险。预防性护理不允许收挂号费。

No longer are insurance companies permitted to put lifetime caps on benefits, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

保险公司不再允许对福利实行终身上限等等。

All of that could have been struck down under the theory of the red states who brought this case.

所有这些都可能是在红州的理论下被推翻的条款，红州是此案的原告方。

But in fact, they didn't prevail. The Supreme Court for the third time left this law intact, standing as it is.

但事实上，他们没有获胜。最高法院第三次维持了这项法案的完整性，并保持不动。

And I'm sure there will be challenges in the future and never say never,

我相信未来还会有挑战，永远不要下定论，

but it does seem that the court is uninterested in — at this point anyway — in striking down the ACA as it now exists.

但看起来法院对废除《平价医疗法案》的行动毫无兴趣——不管怎样，现在它已经存在了。

And this wasn't the only Supreme Court decision today.

这不是最高法院今天做出的唯一裁决。

There was another ruling in favor of a Catholic group that wouldn't allow same-sex foster parents. How sweeping is this ruling?

另一项裁决支持天主教团体，即不允许同性伴侣收养孩子。这项裁决的影响有多广泛？

This is a very long decision with lots of concurring opinions. And as we sit here right now, I actually can't tell you how sweeping it is.

这是一项长期决定，有很多一致的意见。我们现在坐在这里，我无法告诉你这项裁决的影响范围有多大。

What I can tell you is that it is a major victory for those who claim religious exemptions in the free ex — on the grounds of the free exercise of religion against claims by LGBT communities

我可以告诉你的是，对以信教自由为由主张宗教豁免并反对LGBT群体要求的人来说，这是一项重大胜利，

that they should have equal access and the contracting rights of state and city governments.

LGBT群体认为他们应该享有平等的准入权以及州和城市的缔约权。

In this case, the city of Philadelphia said — had a rule and a statute, essentially a city statute, that said you can't discrimination — discriminate in contracting.

在本案中，费城表示，该市法规要求缔约关系中不应存在歧视。

And Catholic Social Services did that in the sense that it said, under our religious beliefs, we shouldn't be involved in certifying LGBT parents for foster care,

但天主教社会服务中心（简称CSS）却有歧视行为，因为该组织表示，根据我们的宗教信仰，我们不应参与认证LGBT群体为养父母，

and therefore we will not screen them, which is — they had a contract with the city to screen potential foster care parents.

因此我们不会对他们进行筛选，该组织与费城签订了一份合同，筛选潜在的收养父母。

Now, no LGBT couple asked to be screened, but CSS still said we wouldn't screen them if they came.

目前没有LGBT伴侣申请进行筛选，但天主教社会服务中心仍表示，如果该群体提交申请，我们不会对他们进行筛查。

And the Supreme Court upheld their right to do that today.

最高法院今天支持该组织这样做的权利。

Just how far the court went — it certainly could have gone further,

法院究竟走了多远——当然法院本可以走得更远，

but it does look as if the court has given institutions like Catholic Social Services a fairly broad hand to have religious exemptions to state and city anti-discrimination laws.

但看起来法院似乎已经给予天主教社会服务中心等机构相当广泛的支持，得以就州和城市反歧视法给予宗教豁免。

NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, thank you for your reporting.

以上是NPR新闻法律事务记者尼娜·托滕伯格带来的报道，非常谢谢你的报道。

Thank you.

谢谢你。