2026年2月25日 美国东部时间下午5:49 / 路透社
波士顿，2月25日（路透社） – 一名联邦法官周三裁定，特朗普政府实施了一项非法政策，该政策允许快速将移民驱逐至非其原籍国的其他国家，且未给予移民提出异议和表达其安全担忧的机会。
美国马萨诸塞州联邦地区法官布莱恩·墨菲（Brian Murphy）在波士顿作出最终裁决，宣布美国国土安全部（DHS）的该政策无效。特朗普政府预计此案最终将由美国最高法院裁决。
墨菲表示，该政策于2025年3月作为共和党总统唐纳德·特朗普移民打击行动的一部分出台，但未能保护移民的正当程序权利。这些移民可能在毫无通知的情况下被迅速驱逐至”一个陌生且可能存在危险的国家”。
墨菲指出，特朗普政府曾辩称，根据该政策，移民官员可以快速将人们驱逐至所谓的”第三国”（即移民并非来自的国家），只要国土安全部确定移民在抵达时不会面临被杀害的危险。
“这不正确，也不合法。”由民主党总统乔·拜登任命的墨菲在裁决中写道。
国土安全部未立即回应置评请求。
裁决暂缓执行，等待可能的上诉
法官暂停了该政策的执行，并宣布该政策下的移民有权获得有意义的通知，并就被驱逐至第三国的决定提出异议。但他将裁决的生效时间暂停15天，以便政府有时间提起上诉，理由是此案”重要且历史罕见”。
他提到最高法院此前对该案的干预。最高法院此前撤销了墨菲在4月份发布的初步禁令，该禁令旨在保护面临被驱逐至第三国的移民的正当程序权利。此后，最高法院也为8名男子被送往南苏丹扫清了道路。
在该禁令生效期间，它阻碍了政府将移民送往非原籍国的努力，包括南苏丹、利比亚和萨尔瓦多。
周三的裁决是针对一起集体诉讼案作出的，该诉讼案代表那些被驱逐至其移民法庭命令中未提及的或在移民法庭程序中未被确认的国家的移民提出。
该政策允许移民被驱逐至此类国家，前提是移民当局要么获得可信的外交保证，即他们在被送往该国后不会受到迫害或酷刑，要么仅给予移民最多6小时的通知，告知其将被送往该国。
国家移民诉讼联盟（National Immigration Litigation Alliance）代表原告的律师特丽娜·雷阿尔穆托（Trina Realmuto）称，墨菲的裁决”是法院发出的有力声明，即政府的第三国驱逐政策违宪”。
雷阿尔穆托在一份声明中说：”根据政府的政策，人们被强行遣返到美国移民法官认定他们将受到迫害或酷刑的国家。”
美国司法部律师辩称，该政策符合移民法要求和正当程序标准，对于将因犯罪被本国拒绝的移民驱逐出境至关重要。
报道：内特·雷蒙德（Nate Raymond） 波士顿报道
编辑：亚历克西亚·加拉姆法尔维（Alexia Garamfalvi）、尼亚·威廉姆斯（Nia Williams）和比尔·伯克罗特（Bill Berkrot）
Trump policy allowing swift deportations to alternate countries rejected by US judge
February 25, 2026 5:49 PM UTC / Reuters
BOSTON, Feb 25 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration had adopted an unlawful policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own without providing them a chance to object and raise concerns for their safety.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued a final ruling declaring the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s policy invalid in a case that the administration expects will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The policy, which was adopted in March 2025 as part of Republican President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, failed to protect the due process rights of migrants who without notice could be swiftly deported to “an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country,” Murphy said.
Murphy said the administration had argued it would be “fine” for immigration officers under that policy to quickly deport people to so-called third countries they did not come from as long as DHS does not know someone is waiting to kill them upon their arrival.
“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” wrote Murphy, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden.
DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
DECISION ON HOLD PENDING LIKELY APPEAL
The judge set aside the policy and declared that migrants who had been subject to it had a right to meaningful notice and a chance to raise objections to being deported to third countries. But he paused his ruling from taking effect for 15 days to allow the administration time to pursue an appeal, citing the case’s “importance and its unusual history.”
He noted the Supreme Court’s earlier interventions in the case. The court previously lifted a preliminary injunction Murphy issued in April protecting the due process rights of migrants facing deportation to third countries and later cleared the way for eight men to be sent to South Sudan.
While it was in effect, that earlier injunction hindered the administration’s efforts to send migrants to countries other than their places of origin, including South Sudan, Libya and El Salvador.
Wednesday’s ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of migrants facing deportation to countries not previously named in their removal orders or identified in their immigration court proceedings.
The policy allows migrants to be deported to such countries if immigration authorities either have credible diplomatic assurances they will not be persecuted or tortured if sent there, or have given the migrants as little as six hours of notice that they are being sent to such a place.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, called Murphy’s ruling “a forceful statement from the court that the administration’s third country removal policy is unconstitutional.”
“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where U.S. immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Realmuto said in a statement.
Department of Justice lawyers had argued the policy satisfied immigration law requirements and due process standards and was essential for deporting migrants whose home countries refused them due to crimes they committed.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Nia Williams and Bill Berkrot
发表回复