2026年3月25日 / 美国东部时间下午5:55 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
周三，联邦上诉法院法官小组在拘留大量非法居住在美国的移民问题上为特朗普政府取得重大法律胜利，裁定未经检查和允许进入美国的人员可被拘留且无需保释。
美国第八巡回上诉法院以2比1的裁决结果做出了这一判决，这是联邦上诉法院第二次在该问题上支持政府立场，尽管全美数百名地方法院法官持相反观点。保守派的第五巡回法院今年早些时候也做出了类似裁决。
据明尼苏达州美国检察官办公室消息人士透露，周三的裁决可能影响仅明尼苏达州就超过1000起的移民拘留案件。第八巡回法院还管辖从北达科他州到阿肯色州的另外六个州。
本案涉及一名墨西哥公民华金·埃雷拉·阿维拉（Joaquin Herrera Avila），他去年8月在明尼阿波利斯被美国国土安全部拘留。国土安全部对其无保释拘留并启动驱逐程序。
他的律师提交了人身保护令申请以寻求释放，明尼苏达州美国地方法院批准了这一请求。周三的裁决推翻了下级法院的判决。
多数意见由乔治·W·布什任命的法官博比·谢泼德（Bobby Shepherd）起草，得到特朗普任命的法官L·史蒂文·格拉兹（L. Steven Grasz）的支持。特朗普第一任期内任命的拉尔夫·R·埃里克森（Ralph R. Erickson）法官提出异议。
埃里克森写道：”除了一次酒驾外，近20年来，华金·埃雷拉·阿维拉在美国一直过着守法生活。过去29年里，阿维拉在驱逐程序中本应有权获得保释听证会。现在法院裁定阿维拉以及数百万其他人必须被强制拘留。”
司法部长帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi）在社交平台X上称赞这一裁决。
“对激进法官的重大法庭胜利，支持特朗普总统的法治与秩序议程！”她写道，”第八巡回法院裁定非法移民可被无保释拘留——继上月第五巡回法院做出类似裁决之后。法律非常明确，但民主党人和激进法官不愿执行。本届政府将执行。”
过去，在美国居住多年的非法移民通常有资格参加保释听证会，他们可以要求移民法官允许其在不被拘留的情况下抗辩驱逐案件。
但特朗普政府辩称，任何非法进入美国的人都必须被强制驱逐，除非移民当局基于人道主义或公共利益理由给予假释。
去年秋天，司法部下属的移民法院做出了一项全面决定，政府在驱逐程序待决期间可基本上无限期拘留大量移民。
此后，美国各地联邦法院被移民挑战拘留的案件浪潮淹没。在大多数情况下，美国地方法院支持移民并裁定政府败诉。据《政客》杂志统计，超过400名法官在5000多起案件中裁定政府败诉。
明尼苏达州联邦司法管辖区的移民拘留案件处理尤为棘手，部分原因是人员短缺。包括军事法官司法部长办公室（JAG）军官和移民与海关执法局（ICE）律师在内的其他联邦机构律师被调往明尼苏达州协助司法部。
明尼苏达州美国检察官丹尼尔·罗森（Daniel Rosen）今年早些时候在法庭文件中表示，他的工作人员面临”巨大负担”。
“本办公室被迫将本已有限的资源从其他紧迫和重要的优先事项中转移出来，”罗森写道，”助理员持续加班，律师持续加班。”
乔纳·卡普兰（Jonah Kaplan）和卡米洛·蒙托亚-加尔维斯（Camilo Montoya-Galvez）对本报道有贡献。
Appeals court lets Trump administration hold many immigration detainees without bond
March 25, 2026 / 5:55 PM EDT / CBS News
A panel of appeals court judges handed the Trump administration a major legal victory on Wednesday in its quest to detain large swaths of immigrants living in the country illegally, saying that people who entered the United States without inspection and admission can be detained without bond.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit marks the second time that a federal appellate court has sided with the administration on the issue, even as hundreds of lower court judges across the country have taken the opposite view. The conservative Fifth Circuit issued a similar ruling earlier this year.
Wednesday’s ruling could impact more than 1,000 immigration detention cases in Minnesota alone, according to a source in the U.S. Attorney’s office in that state. The Eighth Circuit also oversees six other states stretching from North Dakota to Arkansas.
The case involved a man named Joaquin Herrera Avila, a citizen of Mexico who was apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security in Minneapolis last August. DHS detained him without bond and brought removal proceedings against him.
His lawyers filed a petition of habeas corpus seeking his release, and the U.S. District Court in Minnesota granted the request. Wednesday’s decision reversed the lower court’s ruling.
The majority opinion was drafted by Judge Bobby Shepherd, a George W. Bush appointee, and joined by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a Trump appointee. Judge Ralph R. Erickson, who was appointed during President Trump’s first term, dissented.
“Except for a single DUI, for nearly 20 years, Joaquin Herrera Avila had been living a law-abiding life in the United States,” Erickson wrote. “For the past 29 years, Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his removal proceedings. The court now holds that Avila—and millions of others—are subject to mandatory detention.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi lauded the ruling in a post on X.
“MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!” she wrote. “The Eighth Circuit has held that illegal aliens can be detained without bond — following a similar ruling from the Fifth Circuit last month. The law is very clear, but Democrats and activist judges haven’t wanted to enforce it. This administration WILL.”
In the past, undocumented immigrants who lived in the U.S. for years had typically been eligible for bond hearings where they could ask an immigration judge to let them fight their deportation cases without remaining detained.
But the Trump administration has argued that anyone who entered the U.S. illegally is subject to mandatory deportation, unless immigration authorities grant them parole on humanitarian or public interest grounds.
Last fall, a Justice Department-run immigration court made a sweeping determination that the government could essentially detain a large swath of immigrants indefinitely while their removal proceedings are pending.
Since then, federal courts across the United States have been crushed by a tidal wave of cases filed by immigrants challenging their detention. In most cases, U.S. District Courts have sided with the immigrants and ruled against the government. According to a tally from Politico, more than 400 judges have ruled against the government in more than 5,000 cases.
The federal court district in Minnesota, where the case taken up by the Eighth Circuit originated, has had an especially challenging time handling immigration detention cases, in part due to staffing shortfalls. Attorneys from other units of the federal government, including military Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) officers and ICE lawyers, have been shifted to assist the Justice Department in Minnesota.
U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota Daniel Rosen said in a court filing earlier this year that his staff were facing “an enormous burden.”
“This office has been forced to shift its already limited resources from other pressing and important priorities,” Rosen wrote. “Paralegals are continuously working overtime. Lawyers are continuously working overtime.”
Jonah Kaplan and Camilo Montoya-Galvez contributed to this report.
发表回复