2026年6月25日 / 美国东部时间上午11:55 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 美国最高法院周四裁定，特朗普政府可以推进相关工作，剥夺超过35.6万名叙利亚和海地移民的临时保护身份，这类身份此前允许他们在美国生活和工作。
这两起案件对特朗普政府打击移民计划的核心内容发起了挑战，意见分歧的最高法院裁定，《临时保护身份法》禁止对根据联邦法律提出的主张进行司法审查。
这场纠纷源于国土安全部决定终止超过6000名叙利亚人和35万名海地人的临时保护身份。此前下级法院法官曾暂停终止该计划的程序，但最高法院以6票赞成、3票反对的裁决推翻了这些判决，称叙利亚和海地移民无权获得法院命令，推迟其临时驱逐保护的终止。
“《临时保护身份法》明确禁止考虑被告方的非宪法诉求，”大法官塞缪尔·阿利托为多数方撰写的意见书中写道。
这项裁决限制了移民和移民权利团体就临时保护身份的终止决定起诉政府并指控其违反联邦法律的权利。法院的保守派多数还表示，来自海地的原告不太可能成功辩称特朗普政府违反了宪法的平等保护保障，因为该决定是出于种族动机。
阿利托写道，特朗普和前国土安全部长克里斯蒂·诺姆的声明表达的政策观点可能基于种族中立的理由，他指出其中一种解释可能是，“本届政府终止了所有提交续期申请的临时保护身份认定，至少反对该计划过去的实施方式。”
对多国移民的潜在影响
这项裁决可能影响来自17个国家的超过100万移民，这些人因战争、自然灾害或其他特殊情况获得了临时保护身份。特朗普政府已经提议取消其中13个国家移民的法律保护，使他们面临失去工作许可、被捕和被驱逐的风险。
在由大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊联名的反对意见中，大法官埃琳娜·卡根写道，本案原告“理应得到比今天的裁决更好的结果”。
“诚然，临时保护身份是一项临时计划，并未承诺向原告提供永无止境的人道主义保护，”她写道。“但法律阻止该计划以本案中可能出现的方式终止——未就国家局势进行必要磋商，而且就海地而言，决策过程中掺杂了不允许的种族考量。”
卡根表示，这项裁决将导致“数十万人的生活被打乱”，而相关诉讼仍需在下级法院继续进行。
白宫对最高法院的裁决表示欢迎，在一份声明中称这肯定了特朗普的观点，即临时保护身份的本意就是临时的。
“它从未被设计为通往永久身份或合法居留的途径，而是由国土安全部长酌情决定，”白宫发言人阿比盖尔·杰克逊说道。“特朗普政府将继续依法终止多年来损害美国民众的移民体系中那些恶劣的滥用行为。”
加州大学洛杉矶分校法学教授阿希兰·阿鲁拉南坦姆代表质疑撤销临时保护身份的叙利亚移民进行了辩护，他敦促国会针对最高法院的裁决采取行动。
“今天，最高法院允许政府忽视国会两党在30年前设立的一项基本人道主义保护措施，该措施旨在确保脆弱的难民不会受制于党派的一时兴起，”他在一份声明中说道。“没有临时保护身份，数百万作为我们社区一员的个人将面临被送回危机国家的风险。”
叙利亚于2012年首次被列为临时保护身份国家，以应对前总统巴沙尔·阿萨德对反政府抗议的镇压。海地则在2010年一场影响了该国约三分之一人口的毁灭性地震后首次获得该保护身份。2021年总统遇刺后，海地因经济、卫生和政治危机多次延长临时保护身份期限。
特朗普重返白宫后，诺姆认定叙利亚和海地均不符合临时保护身份的标准，并提议取消相关保护。
最高法院此前已允许特朗普政府在相关诉讼仍在进行期间，终止超过60万委内瑞拉人的临时保护身份。
司法部曾辩称，国土安全部终止叙利亚和海地临时保护身份的行为合法，但表示法院无权审查部长就该计划作出的决定。
但移民方的律师称，特朗普政府在决定撤销保护身份前，未按照国会在联邦移民法中规定的程序行事。下级法院还发现，终止海地临时保护身份的决定很可能出于种族敌意，理由是特朗普和诺姆的相关言论。
这位总统曾将海地称为“粪坑国家”，并在2024年总统竞选期间大肆宣扬毫无根据的说法，称俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德的海地移民在偷吃当地居民的宠物。
但特朗普政府称，任何关于种族敌意的指控都是虚假的。
自2025年重返白宫以来，特朗普已采取全面措施限制移民。这位总统去年援引了一项被称为《敌对外侨法》的战时法律，将其政府认定为帮派成员的委内瑞拉人即决驱逐，并试图暂停跨境移民申请庇护的权利。
特朗普还签署了一项行政命令，旨在终止为无证移民或临时留美人士所生子女的出生公民权。最高法院正在审议该指令的合法性，但似乎倾向于宣布其违宪。
Supreme Court lets Trump strip deportation protections from Syrians and Haitians
June 25, 2026 / 11:55 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump administration can move forward with its efforts to strip more than 356,000 Syrian and Haitian immigrants of temporary protections that have allowed them to live and work in the United States.
In a pair of cases that tested a key aspect of President Trump’s plan to crack down on immigration, a divided Supreme Court ruled that the TPS law bars judicial review of claims brought under federal law.
The dispute arose out of the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status for more than 6,000 Syrians and 350,000 Haitians. Lower court judges had postponed the terminations of the programs. But the Supreme Court reversed those rulings, saying in a 6-3 decision that immigrants from Syria and Haiti are not entitled to judicial orders postponing the terminations of their temporary deportation protections.
“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
The ruling restricts the ability of the immigrants and immigrant rights groups to sue the government over TPS determinations and allege it violated federal law when it terminated the program. The court’s conservative majority also said the plaintiffs from Haiti are unlikely to succeed in arguing that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection because it was motivated by race.
Statements from Mr. Trump and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications, Alito wrote, noting that one such explanation could be that “the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past.”
Potential impact on immigrants from many countries
The decision could have consequences for more than 1 million immigrants from 17 countries that received TPS because of wars, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions. The Trump administration has moved to rescind the legal protections for immigrants from 13 of those countries, putting them at risk of losing work authorizations, arrest and removal.
In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the plaintiffs in the case “deserve better than today’s decision.”
“True enough that TPS is a temporary program, and that it did not promise the plaintiffs never-ending humanitarian protection,” she wrote. “But the law prevents the program from ending as it likely did here — without the required consultations about country conditions and, as to Haiti, with impermissible race-based considerations tainting the decision.”
Kagan said that as a result of the decision, “hundreds of thousands of lives will be uprooted” while litigation continues in the lower courts.
The White House cheered the Supreme Court’s decision, saying in a statement that it affirms Mr. Trump’s belief that temporary protected status is meant to be temporary.
“It was never intended to be a pathway to permanent status or legal residency and it is committed to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said. “The Trump Administration continues to lawfully end the egregious abuses to our immigration system that have hurt Americans for years.”
Ahilan Arulanantham, a law professor at UCLA who argued on behalf of the Syrian immigrants challenging the TPS revocation, urged Congress to act in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.
“Today the Supreme Court allowed the government to ignore a bedrock humanitarian protection that Congress, in bipartisan fashion, established three decades ago to ensure that vulnerable refugees would not be subject to partisan whims,” he said in a statement. “Without TPS, millions of individuals who are part of our communities are at risk of being sent back to countries in crisis.”
Syria was first designated for TPS in 2012 in response to former President Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown on anti-government protests. Haiti first received the protections in 2010 after a devastating earthquake that affected roughly one-third of its population. Its TPS designation was extended multiple times because of economic, health and political crises after the assassination of its president in 2021.
After Mr, Trump’s return to office, Noem found that neither Syria nor Haiti met the criteria for TPS and sought to rescind the protections.
The Supreme Court has already allowed the Trump administration to end the program for more than 600,000 Venezuelans while litigation over that move continued.
The Justice Department had argued that the Department of Homeland Security acted lawfully when it ended TPS for Syria and Haiti, but said courts could not review the secretary’s determinations with respect to the program.
But lawyers for the immigrants said the Trump administration failed to follow the process laid out by Congress in federal immigration law before deciding to roll back the protections. A lower court also found that the decision to end TPS for Haiti was likely motivated by racial animus, citing statements from Mr. Trump and Noem.
The president has referred to Haiti as a “s**thole country” and, during the 2024 presidential campaign, he amplified baseless claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating residents’ pets.
The Trump administration, though, said any assertions of racial animus were false.
Mr. Trump has undertaken sweeping efforts to curtail immigration since returning to the White House in 2025. The president invoked a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act last year to summarily deport Venezuelans his administration claims are gang members, and he attempted to suspend access to the asylum system for migrants crossing the southern border.
Mr. Trump also signed an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or people in the U.S. temporarily. The Supreme Court is considering the legality of the directive, but appears poised to strike it down.
发表回复