2026年6月25日 美国东部时间下午3:01 / 福克斯新闻频道
最高法院为特朗普政府带来了重大移民政策胜利，确认了总统有权终止临时保护身份，并拒绝边境入境寻求庇护者的入境申请。宪法法律律师乔纳森·特利分析了这两项关键的6比3裁决的影响，强调了其对边境主权和美国未来移民政策的意义。
最高法院周四限制庇护申请的裁决受到移民强硬派的欢迎，但根据三名持不同意见的大法官和涉案移民非营利组织的说法，这项裁决最终可能会增加非法越境人数。
周四，最高法院在“马伦诉奥特罗·拉多案”中裁定，移民必须实际踏上美国领土才有资格申请庇护，推翻了下级法院要求政府对在入境口岸被拒的部分寻求庇护者进行受理的裁决。尽管这项裁决被广泛认为会让庇护申请更难获批，这也是特朗普政府的目标之一，但索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官和奥特罗·拉多组织均认为，该裁决可能会产生意想不到的后果。
“本院此前曾承认，移民法规和程序不应被解释为‘产生以非法而非合法地点入境的反常激励’。然而，多数派的解释恰恰做到了这一点，”索托马约尔在反对意见中写道。“它告诉寻求庇护者，如果能非法越境就能申请庇护，但如果耐心在入境口岸等候，则无法申请。”
奥特罗·拉多组织也持类似观点，在法庭文件中指出，将庇护资格限制在实际进入美国境内的人群，会“产生在入境口岸之间越境的反常激励”，因为这样做的人将比在口岸被拦下的人拥有更多权利。
最高法院为特朗普带来两项重大移民胜利
)
目前尚不清楚对此裁决表示庆祝的国土安全部是否已为寻求庇护者非法越境人数可能上升做好准备。福克斯新闻数字频道周四联系国土安全部征求评论，但该部门未予回应。
由塞缪尔·阿利托大法官领导的保守派多数派淡化了这种可能性，称这种担忧“言过其实”。
)
司法部在这场事关重大的最高法院边境案件中指责法院削弱行政权力
“入境核验并不会永久阻止任何外国公民抵达美国并随后申请庇护，”阿利托代表多数派写道。“另一方面，非法入境可能代价高昂且危险重重，还会带来不利的法律后果。在不当地点入境属于犯罪行为。如果外国公民在被遣返后非法再次入境，将丧失庇护资格。”
“因入境核验而延误入境和检查的外国公民，除非有充分理由立即申请庇护，否则更愿意承担非法入境的所有风险，”他补充道。
特朗普政府为经过背景审查的移民放宽庇护冻结政策，但保留对“高风险”国家的禁令
)
入境核验指的是限制每天有多少寻求庇护者可以接近或进入美国入境口岸进行受理的做法。根据这项政策，移民通常会被告知在墨西哥等候，直到美国官员确认口岸有受理能力。
阿利托的推理不足以说服索托马约尔和其他持不同意见的大法官。
“但关键不在于非法入境总能让寻求庇护者获得净收益；而在于国会不太可能设计出这样一种制度：庇护仅对非法踏上美国边境的人开放，却不对那些试图遵守法律、但在入境口岸入口处被移民官员拦下的人开放，”她写道。“还有一个不幸的现实是，尽管多数派提到了不利后果，但许多寻求庇护者不顾一切逃离本国遭受的迫害，愿意冒着重大风险申请庇护。”
索托马约尔随后援引了国土安全部监察长办公室2018年的一份报告，该报告发现入境核验产生了“意想不到的后果”，导致“一些原本会寻求合法入境美国的外国公民非法越境”。
该报告是在下级法院裁定边境被拒的移民可以申请庇护之前发布的，这意味着其涵盖的情况与最高法院确立的新现状相当。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用程序
“本届政府已经证明，边境可以阻止非法入境。随着边境墙建设的推进，威慑非法越境的能力只会增强，”右翼组织美国移民改革联合会的诉讼主管马特·克拉波告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
“只要联邦政府将边境安全作为优先事项，非法越境就不应成为主要担忧，”他补充道。
Trump scores SCOTUS asylum win — but liberal justice warns it could backfire at border
June 25, 2026 3:01pm EDT / Fox News
The Supreme Court delivers significant immigration victories for the Trump administration, affirming presidential authority to end temporary protected status and turn away asylum seekers at the border. Constitutional law attorney Jonathan Turley breaks down the impact of these crucial 6-3 decisions, highlighting their implications for border sovereignty and future immigration policy in the United States.
The Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to restrict asylum applications, hailed by immigration hawks, could actually end up increasing illegal crossings, according to the three dissenting justices and immigration nonprofit involved in the case.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court held in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that migrants must physically set foot in the United States in order to be eligible for asylum, reversing lower court rulings that had required the government to process certain asylum seekers turned away at ports of entry. While the decision is broadly viewed as making asylum claims more difficult to secure, an objective of the Trump administration, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Al Otro Lado both argue that it may have unintended consequences.
“This Court has previously recognized that immigration statutes and procedures should not be construed to ‘create a perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location. Yet, the majority’s construction does exactly that,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “It tells asylum seekers that they may apply for asylum if they can make it across the border illegally but that they cannot apply if they patiently wait at the edge of a port of entry.”
Al Otro Lado argued on similar lines, stating in a court filing that restricting asylum access to those who physically enter the United States would”create a perverse incentive to cross the border between ports of entry” as people who do so will receive greater rights than those stopped at ports.
SUPREME COURT HANDS TRUMP TWO MAJOR IMMIGRATION VICTORIES
Asylum seekers seen walking toward the southern border in Tijuana, Mexico and a image of a courtroom in the Concord Immigration Court. Kyra Lilien, an immigration judge is suing the Trump administration over her termination, alleging she was fired because of her political affiliations.(Getty Images; Concord Immigration Court)
It is unclear if the Department of Homeland Security, which celebrated the decision, has prepared for the potential uptick in asylum seekers illegally crossing the border. DHS did not respond to a request for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday.
The conservative majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, downplayed this possibility, calling the concern “overstated.”
Pro and anti-Trump demonstrators rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2026, before justices hear oral arguments on whether President Donald Trump can deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.(J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
DOJ ACCUSES COURTS OF UNDERCUTTING EXECUTIVE POWER IN HIGH-STAKES SUPREME COURT BORDER CASE
“Metering does not permanently bar any alien from arriving in the United States and then applying for asylum,” Alito wrote for the majority. “Illegal entry, on the other hand, may be expensive and dangerous, and it carries adverse legal effects. Entry at an improper location is a crime. An alien becomes ineligible for asylum if he unlawfully re-enters the country after having been removed.”
“An alien whose admission and inspection are delayed due to metering would need a powerful reason to apply for asylum immediately for it to be preferable to run all the risks of illegal entry,” he added.
TRUMP ADMIN EASES ASYLUM FREEZE FOR VETTED MIGRANTS, KEEPS BANS ON ‘HIGH-RISK’ NATIONS
Migrants cross illegally through a hole in a fence near El Paso, Texas, on Dec. 22, 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court halted the removal of Title 42, a policy used to block migrants at the southwest border.(Allison Dinner/AFP)
Metering refers to the practice of limiting how many asylum seekers can approach or enter a U.S. port of entry each day for processing. Under the policy, migrants were often told to wait in Mexico until U.S. officials determined the port had capacity.
Alito’s rationale was not enough to convince Sotomayor and the other dissenting justices.
“The point, however, is not that illegal entry always produces a net windfall for asylum seekers; it is that Congress was unlikely to devise a system in which asylum is available to those who unlawfully set foot over the border, but not to those who attempt to comply with the law and are physically blocked from entering at the threshold of a port of entry by an immigration officer,” she wrote. “It is also the unfortunate reality that, despite the adverse consequences the majority cites, many asylum seekers are desperate enough to flee the persecution they face in their home countries that they are willing to run significant risks to apply for asylum.”
Sotomayor went on to cite a 2018 DHS Office of the Inspector General report that found metering had “unintended consequences” which “le[d] some aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the border illegally.”
The report was published before lower courts held that migrants turned away at the border could apply for asylum, meaning that the conditions it covered are comparable to the new status quo set by the Supreme Court.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“This administration has demonstrated that the border can be secured against illegal entries. As border wall construction continues, the ability to deter illegal crossings will only improve,” Matt Crapo, the director of litigation at the right-wing Federation for American Immigration Reform, told Fox News Digital.
“So long as the federal government makes border security a priority, illegal crossings should not be a major concern,” he added.
发表回复