2026-06-15T13:39:57.528Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
更新于1小时32分钟前
更新时间：2026年6月15日，美国东部时间上午9:43
发布时间：2026年6月15日，美国东部时间上午9:39
凯文·卡特/盖蒂图片社
内容摘要
- 最高法院将裁定政府能否在没有保释听证会的情况下长期羁押非公民。
- 本案涉及两名曾被判处严重重罪的绿卡持有者，他们分别被羁押了7个月和近两年，期间未获得任何听证会。
- 这一裁决可能会对特朗普政府的移民执法政策产生重大影响。
AI生成的摘要已由CNN编辑审核。
美国最高法院周一同意审理一起案件，裁定政府是否可以在没有保释听证会的情况下长期羁押非公民。这起案件可能会对特朗普政府的移民打击行动产生重大影响。
争议的核心是两名绿卡持有者：他们均曾被判处严重重罪，移民官员试图将其中一人驱逐至多米尼加共和国，另一人驱逐至牙买加。在递解案件审理期间，一人被羁押了7个月，另一人则被羁押了近两年。
两人均未获得听证会，以评估他们是否有潜逃风险或是否可以被保释释放。
纽约联邦上诉法院2024年裁定，根据正当程序条款，对非公民的长期羁押必须举行保释听证会。特朗普政府于今年1月就该判决向最高法院提起上诉，称其“严重误导”。
涉案法律规定，对犯有特定罪名的非公民实施强制羁押。特朗普政府重新对部分移民进行分类，将更多人纳入强制羁押范围——这一举措多次在法庭上受到挑战，最终很可能会由最高法院进行审理。
本案中的两名男子由美国公民自由联盟代理，该联盟曾主张最高法院不应受理此案。该团体表示，部分原因是其中一名男子已经离开美国，另一名男子已被释放，据其律师称，移民及海关执法局（ICE）并未试图重新羁押他。
2016年，最高法院曾同意审理一起类似的质疑案，并认定联邦法律并未要求必须举行保释听证会。但由大法官塞缪尔·阿利托撰写的法院分歧裁决，并未回答在长期羁押后，宪法是否要求举行保释听证会这一问题。
“法院解读该法规，禁止为这些个人提供保释，因此禁止保释听证会，”已退休的自由派大法官斯蒂芬·布雷耶当时在异议意见中写道。“在我看来，多数派对该法规的解释很可能会使该法规违宪。”
特朗普政府还就第二巡回上诉法院的裁决提起上诉，该裁决要求政府必须以比其他案件更高的证据标准，证明非公民有潜逃风险或对社区构成威胁，才能继续羁押他们。
Supreme Court to decide if migrants detained for months must receive bond hearings
2026-06-15T13:39:57.528Z / CNN
By John Fritze
Updated 1 hr 32 min ago
Updated Jun 15, 2026, 9:43 AM ET
PUBLISHED Jun 15, 2026, 9:39 AM ET
The US Supreme Court is seen at dusk on May 28 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Carter/Getty Images
Summary
- The Supreme Court will decide whether the government can hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without bond hearings.
- The case involves two green card holders convicted of aggravated felonies who were detained for seven months and nearly two years without hearings.
- A ruling could significantly affect the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if the government may hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without a bond hearing, a case that could have significant implications for the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
At the center of the dispute are two green card holders who had been convicted of aggravated felonies that immigration officials sought to deport to the Dominican Republic in one case and to Jamaica in the other. One of the men was held for seven months and the other for nearly two years as their removal cases were pending.
Neither received a hearing to assess whether they were a flight risk or could be released on bond.
A federal appeals court in New York ruled in 2024 that the due process clause requires a bond hearing for prolonged detention for noncitizens. The Trump administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court in January, arguing that it was “seriously misguided.”
The law at issue requires mandatory detention for noncitizens convicted of a list of crimes. The Trump administration has reclassified certain types of immigrants to sweep far more people into mandatory detention — a move that has been repeatedly challenged in court and that is likely to be ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The two men at the center of the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the Supreme Court should decline to hear the case. That’s partly because, the group said, one of the men had already left the country and the other was released and, according to his attorneys, ICE has not attempted to re-detain him.
In 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a similar challenge and concluded that federal law did not require bond hearings. But the court’s divided decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, declined to answer whether the Constitution would require those hearings after prolonged detention.
“The court reads the statute as forbidding bail, hence forbidding a bail hearing, for these individuals,” liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who has since retired, wrote in dissent at the time. “In my view, the majority’s interpretation of the statute would likely render the statute unconstitutional.”
The Trump administration also appealed the 2nd Circuit’s holding that, in order to continue detention, the government must prove that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or is a danger to the community with a higher standard of evidence than is required in other cases.
发表回复