2026年6月25日 美国东部时间11:19 / 福克斯新闻
塞缪尔·阿利托大法官撰写了两份意见书，同时裁定临时保护身份持有者无法阻止其身份被撤销
罗伯特·施马德
文/罗伯特·施马德 福克斯新闻
国土安全部庆祝最高法院在第三国驱逐案中获胜：“准备好驱逐飞机”
《巾帼群英会》节目组讨论最高法院裁决，以及为何这被视为特朗普政府打击非法移民行动的重大胜利。
最高法院于周四上午为唐纳德·特朗普总统赢得两项重大移民胜利，均与本届政府减少庇护申请的举措相关。
在第一起案件“穆林诉奥尔特罗·拉多案”中，最高法院裁定，在入境美国前被边境拦下的移民无权申请庇护。在第二起案件“穆林诉多伊案”中，最高法院裁决，在美国境内拥有临时保护身份（TPS）的海地和叙利亚国民，无法在法庭上挑战特朗普政府撤销其身份的举措期间，获得司法救济以推迟身份撤销。
在“穆林诉奥尔特罗·拉多案”的判决意见书中，塞缪尔·阿利托大法官辩称，从法律角度而言，抵达南部边境但在入境前被拦下的移民并未“进入”美国。这一裁决意义重大，因为现行法律规定，任何“进入美国”的人都有权申请庇护。
最高法院在特朗普终止海地、叙利亚移民临时保护身份的举措上存在分歧
2026年4月1日周三，示威者在华盛顿特区最高法院外集会。（格雷姆·斯隆/彭博社 via 盖蒂图片社）
“本案提出了一个直截了当的问题：一名试图从墨西哥进入美国的外国人，在仍处于墨西哥境内时，是否属于‘进入美国’？”阿利托写道，“在下级法院的判决中，美国第九巡回上诉法院给出了‘是’的答案。这是错误的。在日常用语中，没有人会说一个人在进入某个地方——比如一所房子、一座城市或一个国家——之前就已经‘抵达’了那里。”
同样在“穆林诉多伊案”中撰写判决意见书的阿利托还裁定，设立临时保护身份的法律明确禁止持有者获得司法救济，除非其诉求具有宪法依据。
阿利托驳斥律师混淆庇护法的文字游戏
2026年4月1日，支持和反对特朗普的示威者在华盛顿特区美国最高法院外集会，当时大法官们正在口头辩论唐纳德·特朗普总统是否可以拒绝为非法入境或临时留在美国的父母所生的子女授予公民身份。（J·斯科特·阿普怀特/美联社）
“在本案中，我们需要审议的是，挑战撤销叙利亚和海地外国人临时保护身份（TPS）的申请人，是否有权在诉讼期间获得命令推迟身份撤销。”阿利托写道，“我们的结论是，他们没有这项权利。”
最高法院将审查特朗普关于出生权公民身份的行政令
2026年1月9日，华盛顿特区的美国最高法院大楼。当天最高法院并未就唐纳德·特朗普总统的全球关税政策发布裁决。（苏尔·卢/法新社 via 盖蒂图片社）
“临时保护身份法案明确禁止考虑申请人的非宪法诉求。该法案规定‘不得对任何与……临时保护身份指定的撤销’相关的决定进行司法审查。”这位大法官补充道。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
临时保护身份政策以及承认在美入境口岸外的移民享有庇护申请权利的法院裁决，都已成为保守派的争议焦点，移民强硬派人士认为这些政策助长了滥用行为。
最高法院通过放宽庇护申请要求，并批准撤销部分境内移民的临时保护身份，其裁决为特朗普政府减少庇护申请的努力提供了助力。
本文为持续更新报道，请随时关注后续进展。
Supreme Court hands Trump two major immigration victories
June 25, 2026 11:19am EDT / Fox News
Justice Samuel Alito wrote both opinions, also holding that TPS recipients cannot block revocation of their status
Robert Schmad
By Robert Schmad Fox News
DHS celebrates Supreme Court win on third-country deportations: ‘Fire up the deportation planes’
The ‘Outnumbered’ panel discusses the Supreme Court ruling and why it is considered a major victory for the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump two major immigration victories on Thursday morning, both having to do with his administration’s efforts to reduce asylum claims.
In the first case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court held that migrants who are turned away at the border before entering the United States are not entitled to apply for asylum. In the second case, Mullin v. Doe, the court ruled that Haitian and Syrian nationals in the United States with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) could not receive judicial relief postponing the revocation of their status while they challenge the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke it in court.
Writing the opinion in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, Justice Samuel Alito argued that a migrant who reaches the southern border but is turned away before entering has not, for legal purposes, “arrive[d] in” the United States. The holding is significant because current law provides that anyone who “arrives in the United States” has the right to apply for asylum.
SUPREME COURT DIVIDED ON TRUMP EFFORT TO TERMINATE TEMPORARY PROTECTIONS FOR HAITIAN, SYRIAN MIGRANTS
Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.((Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images))
“This case presents a straightforward question: whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico ‘arrives in the United States’ when he or she is still in Mexico,” Alito wrote. “In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered ‘yes.’ That is wrong. In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example, a house, a city, or a country — before the person enters that place.”
Also writing the opinion in Mullin v. Doe, Alito held that the law establishing TPS explicitly blocks recipients from legal relief unless their claims have a constitutional basis.
ALITO BLASTS LAWYER’S WORD-SALAD BLURRING ASYLUM LAW
Pro and anti-Trump demonstrators rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2026, before justices hear oral arguments on whether President Donald Trump can deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily.(J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
“In these cases, we consider whether respondents, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation,” Alito wrote. “We hold that they are not.”
SCOTUS TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
The U.S. Supreme Court building is shown in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 9, 2026. The court did not issue a ruling on President Donald Trump’s global tariffs on that day.(Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows ‘no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination’ of a TPS designation,” the justice continued.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Both TPS and court rulings recognizing asylum-processing rights for migrants stopped just outside U.S. ports of entry had become flashpoints for conservatives, with immigration hawks arguing they facilitated abuse.
By making asylum applications more difficult and green-lighting the termination of Temporary Protected Status for some people already in the country, the Supreme Court’s decisions give the Trump administration an advantage in its effort to reduce asylum claims.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.