更新于：2026年2月4日 / 美国东部时间晚上10:38 / CBS/美联社
联邦法官周三裁定，俄勒冈州的联邦移民特工必须停止在无逮捕令的情况下逮捕人员，除非有逃跑的可能性。
美国联邦地区法官穆斯塔法·卡萨布海（Mustafa Kasubhai）在一项拟议的集体诉讼中发布了初步禁令，该诉讼针对美国国土安全部的做法——即在加大执法行动期间逮捕偶然遇到的移民，批评者将这种做法描述为“先逮捕，后找理由”。
在特朗普总统大规模驱逐行动期间，类似行动引起了全国民权组织的担忧。非营利性律师事务所创新法律实验室提起了这起诉讼。
根据周三的裁决，俄勒冈州现在与科罗拉多州和华盛顿特区一起，成为特朗普政府被禁止在未首先确认被捕者有逃跑风险的情况下进行无证逮捕的管辖区。明尼苏达州也有一起关于无证逮捕的待审诉讼。政府正在对科罗拉多州和华盛顿特区的裁决提出上诉。
美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）代理局长托德·莱昂斯（Todd Lyons）在上周的一份备忘录中指出，特工不应在没有主管签发的行政逮捕令的情况下进行逮捕，除非他们有合理理由相信此人可能逃离现场。
莱昂斯还扩大了ICE特工可以引用的理由，以得出结论：为遇到的人申请行政逮捕令会让此人有机会在申请逮捕令期间逃跑。
但在周三的法庭听证会上，法官听取了证据，显示俄勒冈州的特工在移民行动中逮捕了人员，而没有此类逮捕令或确定逃跑的可能性。
其中包括一名原告维克多·克鲁兹·加梅兹（Victor Cruz Gamez）的证词，他是一名56岁的祖父，自1999年起在美国生活。他告诉法庭，尽管他有有效的工作许可和待处理的签证申请，但他仍被逮捕并关押在移民拘留中心三周。
听证会还包括一名被确认为M.A.M.的人的证词，她描述了一段视频，显示两名武装移民特工冲进卧室寻找一个不住在那里的人。这段10月份突袭行动的视频在社交媒体上广泛传播，去年屋内一名人员接受了哥伦比亚广播公司新闻（CBS News）的采访。
卡萨布海法官裁定，原告很可能胜诉，并表示“本案中有大量证据表明存在无证逮捕且缺乏充分证据的做法模式”。
卡萨布海还表示，俄勒冈州特工的行为——包括在拘留因民事移民违规行为的人时拔枪——“暴力且残酷”，他担心政府剥夺了在移民突袭中被牵连者的正当程序权利。
“作为一名公职人员，作为一名因誓言而必须维护宪法的人，当我看到行政部门代表的行为和举止不遵守同样的承诺时，我感到关切，”法官表示。“正当程序要求拥有巨大权力的人进行极大的克制……这是建立在这部伟大宪法之上的民主共和国的基石。我认为我们正在失去这一点。”
阿曼达·阿登（Amanda Arden）为本报道提供了帮助。
ICE agents can’t make warrantless arrests in Oregon unless there’s a risk of escape, judge rules
Updated on: February 4, 2026 / 10:38 PM EST / CBS/AP
Federal immigration agents in Oregon must stop arresting people without warrants unless there’s a likelihood of escape, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issued a preliminary injunction in a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of arresting immigrants they happen to come across while conducting ramped-up enforcement operations — which critics have described as “arrest first, justify later.”
Similar actions have drawn concern from civil rights groups across the country amid President Trump’s mass deportation efforts. The nonprofit law firm Innovation Law Lab brought the lawsuit.
With Wednesday’s ruling, Oregon now joins Colorado and Washington, D.C., as jurisdictions where the Trump administration is barred from conducting warrantless arrests without first verifying that the arrestee is a flight risk. There is also a pending lawsuit over warrantless arrests in Minnesota. The government is appealing the rulings in Colorado and D.C.
In a memo last week, Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, noted that agents should not make an arrest without an administrative arrest warrant issued by a supervisor unless they develop probable cause to believe the person is likely to escape from the scene.
Lyons also expanded the grounds that ICE agents and officers can cite to conclude that getting an administrative arrest warrant for someone they encounter would give that person an opportunity to flee while the warrant is being sought.
But in a court hearing Wednesday, the judge heard evidence that agents in Oregon have arrested people in immigration sweeps without such warrants or determining escape was likely.
That included testimony from one plaintiff, Victor Cruz Gamez, a 56-year-old grandfather who has been in the U.S. since 1999. He told the court he was arrested and held in an immigration detention facility for three weeks despite having a valid work permit and a pending visa application.
The hearing also featured testimony from a person identified as M.A.M. who described a video she took of two armed immigration agents bursting into a bedroom to look for somebody who did not live there. The video of the October raid circulated widely on social media, and a person in the house spoke with CBS News last year.
Kasubhai concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail, and said there is “ample evidence in this case that established a pattern of practice of executing warrantless arrests without sufficient evidence.”
Kasubhai also said the actions of agents in Oregon — including drawing guns on people while detaining them for civil immigration violations — have been “violent and brutal,” and he was concerned about the administration denying due process to those swept up in immigration raids.
“I’m concerned, as a public servant, and as someone who has to, by virtue of my oath, to uphold the constitution, when I see actions and behavior on behalf of our executive branch that does not observe that same commitment,” the judge said. “Due process calls for those who have great power to exercise great restraint … That is the bedrock of a democratic republic founded on this great constitution. I think we’re losing that.”
Amanda Arden contributed to this report.
发表回复