更新于：2026年2月6日 / 美国东部时间晚上11:26 / CBS新闻
周五，联邦上诉法院支持了特朗普政府的一项政策，即大规模拘留移民且不举行保释听证会。这对特朗普总统及其驱逐移民的打击行动来说是一场重大法律胜利。
在5号联邦上诉法院的一个法官小组以2比1的裁决中，法官们表示，特朗普政府去年正确重新解释了一项移民法，使移民和海关执法局（ICE）逮捕的许多非法移民无法请求移民法官批准保释。
此前，非法在美国生活多年的移民通常有资格参加保释听证会，并有可能说服移民法官他们并非逃跑风险，应被允许在拘留中心外应对驱逐。历史上，强制拘留仅限于近期越境者和某些犯罪定罪者。
但特朗普政府认为，任何非法进入美国的人，无论多久以前，在驱逐程序期间都必须被拘留。根据该政策，唯一的释放机制是ICE基于人道主义或公共利益理由决定将其保释出狱。
这一重大政策变化导致ICE无限期拘留多年甚至数十年前非法进入美国、原本有资格保释的移民，包括没有犯罪记录的人。
大规模拘留政策已在全国联邦法院受到挑战，政府律师的资源被耗尽。大多数法官认为该政策非法。
但5号联邦上诉法院小组持不同意见，支持特朗普政府的法律立场，推翻了两项下级法院的裁决。
由里根任命的伊迪丝·琼斯法官撰写的多数意见，得到特朗普任命的斯图尔特·凯尔·邓肯法官支持，该意见支持特朗普政府的观点，即联邦法律要求对在美国境内被逮捕并被视为”入境申请者”的大量非法移民进行强制拘留。
“法律条文明确规定，无论前几届政府的决定如何，”该意见写道。”…无论如何，前几届政府未能充分行使其执法权力，并不意味着他们缺乏采取更多行动的权力。”
司法部长帕姆·邦迪对该裁决表示庆祝，称其是”对积极活动的法官的重大打击，这些法官一直阻挠我们让美国再次安全的努力”。
拜登提名的达娜·道格拉斯法官对多数意见表示异议。她写道，政府声称法律要求强制拘留忽视了”历史先例”，并”无视”前几届政府未试图大规模拘留无保释的人的事实。
“为了什么？”道格拉斯写道，认为多数意见”几乎完全基于一种明显的信念，即国会一定希望拘留这些非公民——其中一些是美国公民的配偶、母亲、父亲和祖父母。”
Appeals court endorses Trump policy of holding many ICE detainees without bond hearings
Updated on: February 6, 2026 / 11:26 PM EST / CBS News
A federal appeals court on Friday endorsed the Trump administration’s policy of holding broad groups of immigration detainees without access to bond hearings, a major legal victory for President Trump and his deportation crackdown.
In a 2-1 decision, a panel of federal judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said the Trump administration had properly reinterpreted an immigration law last year to disqualify many unauthorized immigrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement from being able to ask an immigration judge to be released on bond.
Previously, immigrants who had lived in the U.S. unlawfully for years were generally eligible for bond hearings, and the opportunity to persuade an immigration judge that they were not flight risks and should be allowed to fight their deportation outside of a detention center. Mandatory detention had been historically limited to recent border crossers and those convicted of certain crimes.
But the Trump administration took the position that anyone who entered the U.S. illegally, irrespective of how long ago, is subject to mandatory detention during their deportation proceedings. The only mechanism for release under that policy was if ICE decided to parole them out of custody on humanitarian or public interest grounds.
The seismic policy change has led ICE to indefinitely hold detainees who entered the U.S. illegally years or even decades ago and who previously would’ve been eligible for bond, including those without criminal records.
The mass detention policy has been challenged in federal courts across the country, straining the resources of government lawyers. Most judges have found the policy to be illegal.
But the 5th Circuit panel disagreed and upheld the Trump administration’s legal position, reversing two lower court orders.
The majority opinion — penned by Reagan-nominated Judge Edith Jones and backed by Trump-nominated Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan — sided with the Trump administration’s view that federal law provides for mandatory detention of large numbers of unauthorized immigrants who were apprehended in the interior of the U.S. and deemed “applicants for admission.”
“The text says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior Administrations,” the opinion read. “…In any event, that prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority…does not mean they lacked the authority to do more.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling, calling it a “significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn.”
Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden nominee, dissented from the majority opinion. She wrote that the government’s claim that the law calls for mandatory detention ignored “historical precedent” and “wave[d] away” the fact that prior administrations hadn’t sought to detain people without bond en masse.
“And for what?” writes Douglas, arguing that the majority opinion was “based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
