From VOA Learning English, this is In the News.
这里是美国之音慢速英语新闻报道。
The United States Supreme Court made decisions on three major rights cases this week.
美国高等法院本周对三起重大权利案件作出了裁决。
On Monday the court released a decision on education policy for minorities. But, the high court chose not to give a final ruling on the policy known as affirmative action.
周一，法院公布了对少数族裔教育政策裁决。但是最高法院选择不对所谓的“平权法案”政策做出最终裁决。
The case involves a young white woman, Abigail Fisher, who was rejected by the University of Texas. Her lawyers argued that universities should not be permitted to consider race when trying to accept a diverse class of students. They said that considering someone's race in the admissions process violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
该案件涉及一名年轻白人女子阿比盖尔·费舍尔（Abigail Fisher），她被得克萨斯大学拒绝。她的律师认为，大学不应当被允许在录取各类学生时考虑种族因素。他们称，在招生过程中考虑种族违反了人人受到法律平等保护的宪法权利。
Seven of the nine justices voted to return the case to a lower court saying it had not fully studied the university's actions.
九名大法官中的七名投票决定将该案件发回下级法院审理，并表示美国高等法院未能深入研究大学的这一行为。
Opponents praised the Supreme Court for ordering the lower court to enforce a narrower version of the school's affirmative action plan. Civil rights activists welcomed the decision because it did not cancel the policy.
反对者赞扬了高等法院责令下级法院收窄执行学校的平权法案方案。民权活动家对这一决定表示欢迎，因为高等法院并未取消这一政策。
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court did cancel a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress passed the law to ensure that African Americans in southern states could vote. The court decision ends federal supervision of election laws in states with a history of voter suppression.
周二，美国高等法院取消了《1965投票权法案》的一部分内容。国会通过了这一法案，以确保南方各州的非裔美国人可以投票。最高法院裁决取消了对具有选民禁制历史的各州选举法的联邦监督。
The law was aimed at nine states and some cities and counties in seven other states. These states were required to seek approval from the Justice Department to make changes to their election laws. Congress has repeatedly extended the law, most recently in 2006.
该法是针对9个州和其它7个州中的一些县市。这些州要求司法部批准其修改选举法。国会已经多次延伸了该法，最近的一次是2006年。
A divided court ruled by a vote of five to four. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that widespread violation of the rights of black voters no longer exists. The majority ruled that the method used to decide which areas require federal supervision violates the rights of states. It said Congress must decide on a better method.
最高法院意见不一致，最终以5：4做出裁决。在多数派意见中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)写道，现在不再存在普遍侵犯黑人选民权利的情况。多数派裁定，用于决定哪些地区需要联邦监督的办法违法了各州的权利，并表示，国会必须确定更好的办法。
Several states announced they would begin new voting requirements that had been blocked by the Justice Department soon after the ruling.
裁决后不久就有几个州宣布，他们将开始启用曾被司法部禁止的投票规定。
Cherilyn Infill is with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
Cherilyn Infill就职于美国有色人种协进会法律辩护基金。
"Make no mistake about what has happened."
她说，“不要误解了所发生的事情。”
Speaking to a crowd near the court, she said the court has decided that it stands in a better position than Congress to determine how to protect against voting discrimination.
她在法院附近对人群表示，最高法院认为自己在确定如何防止投票歧视上比国会更有优势。
"The 15th amendment to the constitution makes clear that it is Congress that has that power."
“（但是）宪法第15修正案明确指出，是国会拥有这项权力。”
On Wednesday morning, a different crowd waited outside the court building. Supporters of same-sex marriage cheered when the Supreme Court canceled a federal and a state law on the issue.
周三上午，另一群不同的人等在法院大楼外。当最高法院取消了联邦和州在这一问题上的法律后，同性婚姻的支持者欢呼雀跃。
The court said the 1996 federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act violated the rights of same-sex couples. The court said that the government could not prevent same-sex couples from getting the same tax, health and retirement benefits as traditional husbands and wives. Supporters of the laws promised to continue efforts to limit marriage to legal unions of one man and one woman.
法院认为，1996年婚姻保护法这一联邦法违反了同性伴侣的权利。法院表示，政府不能阻止同性伴侣获得和传统夫妇相同的税收、医疗和退休福利。而该法支持者承诺，将继续努力把婚姻限制为一男一女的合法结合。
(51VOA.COM对本文翻译保留全部权利，未经授权请勿转载，违者必究！)