2026-06-15T13:40:58.298Z / 路透社
华盛顿，6月15日（路透社）——美国最高法院周一同意审理唐纳德·特朗普总统政府的一起上诉案件，该案涉及对某些已定罪且正处于驱逐程序中的移民进行长期羁押、不允许其通过保释听证会申请释放的合法性问题。
特朗普政府对下级法院的裁决提起上诉，该裁决称，美国宪法的正当程序权利禁止“不合理地长期羁押”在因特定罪行被定罪后面临驱逐的非美国公民，且不举行听证会。该裁决涉及纽约州的两名移民——一人对袭击罪认罪，另一人因性侵儿童罪名成立。
路透社每日简报通讯为您提供开启一天所需的全部新闻。点击此处订阅。
预计最高法院将在下一个开庭期（10月开始）审理该案的口头辩论。
这场纠纷源于政府羁押两名非美国公民男子的事件，两人均为合法永久居民（即绿卡持有者），且在美国境内时被判处加重重罪。
联邦移民法要求当局羁押并驱逐被判处加重重罪及其他某些严重罪行的非美国公民，或被指控参与恐怖主义活动的人员。
在被羁押数月后，两人均向联邦法院提交了人身保护令请愿书，对羁押的合法性提出质疑，并主张他们有权通过听证会确定是否符合保释释放条件。两人均在特朗普的第一任总统任期内被羁押。
其中一名绿卡持有者是多米尼加裔男子，法庭文件中以G.M.指代。他于2011年成为合法永久居民，四年后在纽约州对袭击罪认罪。他于2020年被羁押。
2021年，一名联邦法官驳回了他的人身保护令请愿书。由于新冠疫情传播风险，G.M.最终于2022年被释放，此前他已被羁押21个月。
另一名男子是牙买加裔公民卡罗尔·布莱克，他于1983年成为合法永久居民。法庭文件显示，他在2000年于纽约州被判性侵一名11岁以下儿童。联邦移民当局以其犯罪记录为由，于2019年将布莱克羁押。
另一名联邦法官于2020年批准了布莱克的请愿，并下令举行保释听证会。他随后以1.5万美元保释金获释。
布莱克最初对针对他的驱逐令提起上诉，据法庭文件显示，他和妻子已于2025年离开美国，且无意返回。基于此，他的律师在提交给最高法院的文件中辩称，布莱克的案件已失去审理意义。
在两案的上诉审理过程中，位于曼哈顿的美国第二巡回上诉法院表示，布莱克被羁押七个月、G.M.被羁押近两年却没有资格获得保释的做法不合理，但该法院并未对这类羁押设定严格的时间限制。第二巡回法院在这两起案件中指出，美国宪法第五修正案规定的正当程序权利赋予了两人申请保释听证会的资格。
第二巡回法院还表示，如果政府试图在这种情况下继续羁押，必须以明确且令人信服的证据证明被羁押者有逃跑风险或对社区构成危险。
代表两名男子的美国公民自由联盟律师塞西莉亚·王表示：“上诉法院的裁决是正确的，我们将在最高法院捍卫我们基本的正当程序原则。”
“宪法保护我们所有人，无论移民身份如何，免受未经正当程序就被关押的待遇，”塞西莉亚·王说道，“美国移民和海关执法局不能在不举行保释听证会的情况下，将移民羁押数月甚至数年，让他们与家人分离、与社区隔绝。”
自特朗普重新就任总统以来，最高法院在多起紧急状态下的移民相关裁决中都支持了他的立场，其中包括允许他将移民驱逐至非本国、撤销数十万委内瑞拉移民的临时合法身份。
最高法院还预计在6月底前就特朗普限制美国出生公民权的指令的合法性，以及政府撤销超过35万海地人和约6100名叙利亚裔美国居民临时法律保护的提案作出裁决。
约翰·克鲁泽尔 报道；威尔·邓纳姆 编辑
Supreme Court to hear Trump appeal involving lengthy detention of certain immigrants
2026-06-15T13:40:58.298Z / Reuters
WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal by President Donald Trump’s administration in a case involving the legality of subjecting certain convicted immigrants with pending deportation proceedings to lengthy detention without bond hearings allowing them to seek a release on bail.
The administration appealed a lower court’s ruling that said the U.S. Constitution’s right to due process bars “unreasonably prolonged” detention without a hearing of non-U.S. citizens who face deportation after being convicted of certain crimes. That ruling involved two immigrants in New York – one who pleaded guilty to assault and the other convicted of sexually abusing a child.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
The court is expected to hear arguments in the case during its next term, which starts in October.
The dispute stems from the government’s detention of two non-U.S. citizen men who were convicted of aggravated felonies while living in the United States as lawful permanent residents, also known as green-card holders.
Federal immigration law requires authorities to detain and seek the deportation of non-U.S. citizens who are convicted of an aggravated felony and certain other serious crimes, or accused of terrorism.
After several months in detention, each man filed a legal action called a habeas corpus petition in federal court challenging the legitimacy of their detention and arguing that they were entitled to hearings to determine whether they qualified to be released on bail. Both men were detained during Trump’s first presidential term.
One of the green-card holders, a Dominican man identified in court papers as G.M., became a lawful permanent resident in 2011 and four years later pleaded guilty in New York to assault, according to court papers. He was detained in 2020.
A federal judge in 2021 denied his habeas corpus petition. G.M. was later released in 2022, after 21 months in detention, due to concerns about the spread of COVID.
The other man, a Jamaican citizen named Carol Black, became a lawful permanent resident in 1983. In 2000, he was convicted in New York of sexually abusing a child younger than 11 years old, according to court papers. Citing his criminal record, federal immigration authorities took Black into custody in 2019.
A separate federal judge granted Black’s petition in 2020 and ordered a bail hearing. He was later released on a $15,000 bond.
After initially appealing a judge’s deportation order against him, Black and his wife left the United States in 2025 and have no intention of returning, according to court papers. For this reason, his lawyer argued in a filing to the Supreme Court, Black’s case should be considered moot.
During appeals of their cases, the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was unreasonable that Black was detained for seven months and G.M. for nearly two years without a chance to qualify for bail, though that court stopped short of setting a strict time limit on such detentions. In these two cases, the 2nd Circuit said, the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process entitled the men to a bond hearing.
The 2nd Circuit also said that if the government seeks to maintain its detention in these circumstances, it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecillia Wang, who represents the two men, said: “The court of appeals got it right, and we will defend our fundamental due process principles at the Supreme Court.”
“The Constitution protects all of us, regardless of immigration status, from being locked away without due process,” Wang said. “(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) cannot detain immigrants – separating families and cutting people off from their communities – for months or even years on end without a bond hearing.”
The Supreme Court has backed Trump in several immigration-related rulings issued on an emergency basis since his return to the presidency, including allowing him to deport migrants to countries other than their own and to revoke temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants.
The court also is expected to rule by the end of June on the legality of Trump’s directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States and the administration’s bid to revoke temporary legal protections for more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians living in the United States.
Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham
发表回复