Part A: Reading Comprehension
Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)
Text 4
On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.
However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.
Two of the three objecting Justices—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power.” The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.
Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
36. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they
37. On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?
38. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts
39. The White House claims that its power of enforcement
40. What can be learned from the last paragraph?
全文翻译
周一，最高法院以5比3的投票结果废除了亚利桑那州移民法的大部分内容——这对奥巴马政府来说是一次温和的政策胜利。但在更重要的宪法问题上，这一裁决以8比0的比分击败了政府破坏联邦政府和各州之间权力平衡的努力。
在亚利桑那州诉美国政府案中，多数派推翻了亚利桑那州备受争议的计划中四项争议性条款中的三项，该计划要求州和地方警察执行联邦移民法。只有华盛顿才有权"建立统一的归化规则"以及联邦法律优先于州法律的宪法原则是没有争议的。亚利桑那州试图制定与现有联邦法律并行的州政策。
安东尼·肯尼迪大法官在首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨和法院自由派的加入下，裁决该州飞得离联邦的太阳太近了。在被推翻的条款上，多数派认为国会已经刻意"占据了该领域"，因此亚利桑那州侵入了联邦的特权权力。
然而，大法官们表示，亚利桑那州警察将被允许核实与执法部门接触者的法律身份。这是因为国会一直设想联邦与州联合执法移民，并明确鼓励州官员分享信息并与联邦同行合作。
三位持反对意见的大法官中的两位——塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯——同意这一宪法逻辑，但在哪些亚利桑那州规则与联邦法规相冲突的问题上存在分歧。唯一的主要反对意见来自安东宁·斯卡利亚大法官，他提出了一个更加强有力地为州特权辩护的意见，追溯至《外侨和煽动叛乱法》。
对奥巴马总统的8比0反对意见，正如塞缪尔·阿利托大法官在其反对意见中所描述的，是针对"联邦行政权力的惊人主张"。白宫辩称，亚利桑那州的法律与其执法优先顺序相冲突，即使州法律与联邦法规完全一致。实际上，白宫声称它可以使任何其不同意的原本合法的州法律无效。
有些权力确实专属于联邦政府，对公民身份和边境的控制就在其中。但如果国会想要阻止各州使用自己的资源来检查移民身份，它完全可以这样做。但它从未这样做过。政府在本质上是在主张，因为它不想执行国会的移民意愿，所以也不允许任何州这样做。每位大法官都正确地驳回了这一不同寻常的主张。
Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)
试题精解
36. [B] overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.
【解析】细节原因题。第三段指出法官裁定亚利桑那州的三项条款被推翻的原因是：“the state flew too close to the federal sun”（该州飞得离联邦这颗太阳太近了）以及“Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers”（亚利桑那州因此侵犯了联邦的特权）。这明确说明亚利桑那州“越权（overstepped the authority）”了。故选 B。
37. [C] States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
【解析】细节题。第四段指出：法官们（Justices）同意亚利桑那州警察“被允许核实人们的合法身份”。原因是国会一直设想的是“joint federal-state immigration enforcement（联邦-州联合执法）”。这说明法官们承认了州在移民执法中具有“合法的角色（legitimate role）”。故选 C。
38. [A] stood in favor of the states.
【解析】推理题。第五段提到，Scalia 法官提出了“an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts”（对州特权提供了更为强有力的辩护，这可以追溯到《外侨与煽动叛乱法》）。既然该法案被用来作为“捍卫州特权”的历史依据，说明该法案是“支持各州的（stood in favor of the states）”。故选 A。
39. [C] outweighs that held by the states.
【解析】细节推理题。第六段指出，白宫声称亚利桑那州的法律与其执法优先权相冲突，“even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter（即使州法律字斟句酌地遵守了联邦法规）”。白宫甚至声称它“could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law（可以废除任何其他合法的州法律）”。这表明白宫认为其行政执法权“大于/超过（outweighs）”各州的权力。故选 C。
40. [D] Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.
【解析】主旨推断题。最后一段总结指出，行政当局（奥巴马政府）本质上是在主张：因为自己不想执行国会的移民意愿，所以任何州也不准执行。但是“Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim（每位大法官都公正地驳回了这一惊人的主张）”。法官全票驳回行政当局的主张，其目的正是为了“牵制/制衡（check）行政部门的权力”。故选 D。
考研核心句型与长难句
【长难句剖析】
1. 经典的伊卡洛斯隐喻：
"Justice Anthony Kennedy... ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun."
【解析】这里使用了一个极其优美的古希腊神话隐喻：伊卡洛斯戴着蜡做的翅膀飞得离太阳太近，导致翅膀融化而坠落。肯尼迪法官用此比喻亚利桑那州（state）的手伸得太长，离联邦政府（federal sun）的专属权力范围太近，从而遭到否决。
"Justice Anthony Kennedy... ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun."
【解析】这里使用了一个极其优美的古希腊神话隐喻：伊卡洛斯戴着蜡做的翅膀飞得离太阳太近，导致翅膀融化而坠落。肯尼迪法官用此比喻亚利桑那州（state）的手伸得太长，离联邦政府（federal sun）的专属权力范围太近，从而遭到否决。
2. 让步状语与极致的行政扩张：
"The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter."
【解析】even if 引导让步状语从句；to the letter 意为“丝毫不差地/严格字面地”。白宫的逻辑是：即便你州政府完全符合联邦法律，只要跟我（行政部门）的“优先事项”冲突，你就是错的。这凸显了白宫权力的极度扩张。
"The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter."
【解析】even if 引导让步状语从句；to the letter 意为“丝毫不差地/严格字面地”。白宫的逻辑是：即便你州政府完全符合联邦法律，只要跟我（行政部门）的“优先事项”冲突，你就是错的。这凸显了白宫权力的极度扩张。
3. 因果逻辑推断：
"The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either."
【解析】in essence（本质上）作插入语；asserting 后接 that 引导的宾语从句。从句内部又包含一个 because 引导的原因状语从句。清晰地揭示了奥巴马政府的“霸道”逻辑，为最后一句法官们的集体驳回做了铺垫。
"The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either."
【解析】in essence（本质上）作插入语；asserting 后接 that 引导的宾语从句。从句内部又包含一个 because 引导的原因状语从句。清晰地揭示了奥巴马政府的“霸道”逻辑，为最后一句法官们的集体驳回做了铺垫。