2026-06-26T17:59:32.57Z / 路透社
6月26日（路透社）——美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的政府已请求美国最高法院允许其在移民打击行动中逮捕的人员无需保释机会即可被拘留，即便这些人已在美国生活多年。
政府在周五公开的一份文件中提出了这一请求，要求最高法院推翻联邦上诉法院5月份的一项裁决。该裁决驳回了政府对一项已有数十年历史的移民法的重新解释，而这一解释正是其大规模拘留政策的依据。
在此注册。
政府于本周早些时候提起上诉，而就在周四，由6名保守派大法官、3名自由派大法官组成的最高法院在移民政策上给予其两场重大胜利，其中包括允许政府剥夺数十万海地和叙利亚移民的驱逐保护令。
政府请求最高法院审查总部位于辛辛那提的美国第六巡回上诉法院由2票赞成、1票反对组成的合议庭作出的一项裁决。该法院是与数百名下级法院法官一同驳回政府拘留做法的三家上诉法院之一。
另外两家上诉法院支持政府的政策，美国副检察长D.约翰·索尔指出了这一情况，他敦促大法官们介入并解决一个“极其重要的移民法律问题”，该问题正引发数千名质疑自身拘留合法性的人士提起诉讼。
“在递解出境程序进行期间，拘留那些非法入境后在美国生活的外国人，能够防止这些外国人逃避听证会，有助于确保他们被遣返回美国，”索尔在请愿书中辩称。
背离长期以来对移民法的解释，美国国土安全部去年提出立场：已在美国居住的非公民，而非仅包括边境入境人员，符合“入境申请者”的定义，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接受强制拘留，且无权参加保释听证会。
隶属于司法部的移民上诉委员会于去年9月发布裁决，采纳了这一解释。结果，受雇于司法部的全国移民法官开始下令实施强制拘留。
第六巡回法院的裁决源自密歇根州的多起案件，涉及墨西哥、萨尔瓦多、委内瑞拉、尼加拉瓜和危地马拉的公民，这些人在美国生活多年后被美国移民和海关执法局或美国海关与边境保护局逮捕。
该法院裁定，政府错误解释了1996年《非法移民改革和移民责任法案》中的一项条款，且这些移民被剥夺保释听证会，违反了美国宪法第五修正案规定的正当程序权利。
内特·雷蒙德 波士顿报道
亚历克西亚·加拉姆法尔维、桑吉夫·米格拉尼 编辑
Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to endorse immigration detention policy
2026-06-26T17:59:32.57Z / Reuters
June 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let it detain people arrested in its immigration crackdown without a chance to seek bond, even if they have lived in the country for years.
The administration made that request in a filing made public on Friday, asking the Supreme Court to overturn a May decision by a federal appeals court, which had rejected its reinterpretation of a decades-old immigration law that now underlies its mass detention policy.
Sign up here.
The administration filed the appeal earlier this week, before the 6-3 conservative majority court handed it a pair of major wins on immigration policy on Thursday, including by allowing it to strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of protections against deportation.
The administration is asking the Supreme Court to review a ruling by a 2-1 panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of three appeals courts that have joined with hundreds of lower-court judges in rejecting its detention practice.
Two other appeals courts have endorsed the administration’s policy, a fact U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted as he urged the justices to intervene and resolve a “critically important question of immigration law” that is fueling thousands of lawsuits by people challenging their detention.
“Detaining aliens who are living in the country after an illegal entry while their removal proceedings unfold prevents those aliens from evading hearings and helps ensure their removal from the United States,” Sauer argued in a petition.
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. As a result, immigration judges, who are employed by the department, across the country began ordering mandatory detention.
The 6th Circuit’s ruling came in cases out of Michigan involving citizens of Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guatemala who had resided in the United States for years before being arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
It held that the administration misinterpreted a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and that the migrants were denied bond hearings in violation of their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Sanjeev Miglani
发表回复