2026-04-28 17:02:57 UTC / 路透社
作者：内特·雷蒙德
2026年4月28日 美国东部时间下午5:02 更新，距发稿已过去3小时
节点运行失败
2026年3月18日，美国犹他州盐湖城，美国移民及海关执法局（ICE）将一处仓库购作拘留中心，民众在仓库附近抗议，地面放置了抗议标语牌。路透社/吉姆·厄克特 资料图
- 内容摘要
- 法院在被拘留者保释听证问题上与其他上诉法院存在分歧
- 第二巡回法院称特朗普政策错误适用了已有数十年历史的移民法
- 美国公民自由联盟律师对有利于巴西男子的裁决表示欢迎
4月28日（路透社）——美国联邦上诉法院周二驳回了特朗普政府将移民打击行动中逮捕的大多数人强制拘留、不允许申请保释的做法。
位于纽约的美国第二巡回上诉法院的一个三名法官组成的合议庭裁定，特朗普政府为支持大规模拘留政策，对一项已有数十年历史的移民法采取了新颖但错误的解释。
订阅《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的晨间资讯。点击此处注册。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
此前另有两家上诉法院作出了相反裁决，推翻了支持被拒绝移民法官保释听证的被拘留者的判决。这些相互矛盾的判决增加了美国最高法院被迫介入此案的可能性。
美国巡回法院法官约瑟夫·比安科代表法院撰写判决书，承认了其他上诉法院的裁决。但他表示，该合议庭与其他法院分道扬镳，转而与全国范围内超过370名驳回政府立场、认为其错误适用法律的下级法院法官站在一起。
他的裁决维持了纽约一名法官的命令，该命令导致巴西公民里卡多·阿帕雷西多·巴博萨·达·库尼亚获释。库尼亚在美国生活了20多年后，去年在开车上班时被移民官员逮捕。
作为特朗普任命的法官，比安科表示，相反的裁决将导致第二巡回法院认可“我国历史上针对数百万非公民的最广泛的无保释大规模拘留授权”。
美国国土安全部去年推翻了对移民法的长期解释，提出不仅是边境入境人员，已在美国居住的非公民也符合“入境申请者”的条件，可被强制拘留。
根据联邦移民法，“入境申请者”在移民法院审理案件期间须被强制拘留，且无权申请保释听证。
隶属于司法部的移民上诉委员会去年9月发布了一项采用该解释的裁决，导致全国范围内受该部门雇佣的移民法官下令实施拘留。
“法院正确认定特朗普政府不能仅凭自身意愿重新解释法律，”美国公民自由联盟代表巴博萨的律师迈克尔·坦在一份声明中说道。
在法庭上为该政策辩护的美国司法部未回应置评请求。
内特·雷蒙德 波士顿报道；大卫·加芬 编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则。
US appeals court rejects Trump’s immigration detention policy
2026-04-28 17:02:57 UTC / Reuters
By Nate Raymond
April 28, 2026 5:02 PM UTC Updated 3 hours ago
节点运行失败
A placard is placed on the ground near a warehouse where people protest as it is purchased by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for use as a detention center in Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S. March 18, 2026. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart/File Photo
- Summary
- Court splits with other appeals courts on bond hearings for detainees
- 2nd Circuit says Trump policy misapplies decades-old immigration law
- ACLU lawyer welcomes ruling in favor of Brazilian man
April 28 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.
A three-judge panel of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Donald Trump’s administration had adopted a novel but wrong interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to support a mass detention policy.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
That ruling came after two other appeals courts ruled the other way, overturning rulings that favored detainees who were denied bond hearings before immigration judges. The differing decisions increase the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to weigh in.
U.S. Circuit Judge Joseph Bianco, writing for the court, acknowledged the other appellate courts’ rulings. But he said the panel was parting ways with them and instead joining with over 370 lower-court judges nationally who have rejected the administration’s position and held it is misapplying the law.
His ruling upheld an order by a judge in New York that had led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the United States for over 20 years.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Bianco, a Trump appointee, said a ruling to the contrary would result in the 2nd Circuit endorsing “what would be the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.”
Bucking a long-standing interpretation of immigration law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already residing in the United States, and not just people arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention.
Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the United States are subject to mandatory detention while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Justice Department, issued a decision in September that adopted that interpretation, leading to immigration judges nationally employed by the department to mandate detention.
“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.
The U.S. Department of Justice, which is defending the policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by David Gaffen
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复