2026-04-28T09:23:56-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）新闻
华盛顿讯 — 达莉亚·多感觉自己的世界天翻地覆。
这位十多年前赴美求学的叙利亚裔化名受访者，通过临时保护身份（TPS）获得了法律保护。该项目为来自受冲突、自然灾害或其他极端情况困扰国家的民众提供免于被驱逐的救济。
但去年9月，国土安全部宣布终止超过6000名叙利亚人的TPS资格，要求这些已获授权在美国生活和工作的移民在60天内离境，否则将面临逮捕和驱逐。
“我知道TPS一直是被针对的目标，也清楚特朗普政府正逐个取消各国的TPS资格，但只给60天期限还是让我大为震惊，满心悲痛，”达莉亚对CBS新闻说道，“这表明我们的生命多么不值钱。”
现年二十多岁的达莉亚2021年获得TPS资格，目前担任研究主管，住在纽约布朗克斯区，照顾患有帕金森症的父亲。她的父母是合法永久居民，姐姐是美国公民。
达莉亚虽是叙利亚公民并持有该国护照，但出生在另一个中东国家，从未在叙利亚生活过。如果特朗普政府终止叙利亚裔移民TPS资格的诉求得到支持——最高法院将于周三审理这一案件——达莉亚担心自己会被遣返到一个从未生活过、也没有直系亲属的国家。她和另外六名叙利亚裔移民去年提起诉讼，要求阻止特朗普政府剥夺他们的驱逐保护。
“我的生活将陷入持续的恐惧和不确定之中，我成年后建立的一切都会在眼前烟消云散，”她说，“这不仅仅是一项法律修改，也不仅仅是一项政策改变。它会在一夜之间彻底打乱像我这样已在美国生活十年甚至更久的人的人生。”
叙利亚和海地的TPS终止计划
叙利亚是特朗普政府宣布取消临时保护身份的13个国家之一。最高法院将于周三审理国土安全部终止叙利亚和海地两国TPS资格的诉求，相关两起案件分别为《马林诉多案》和《特朗普诉米奥特案》。
司法部及支持特朗普政府的一方辩称，TPS本应提供临时性的驱逐救济，终止叙利亚和海地两国TPS资格的决定是基于保护国家安全和公共安全的考量。
最高法院去年允许国土安全部取消数十万委内瑞拉移民的保护身份，使他们面临被驱逐的风险。特朗普政府针对的其他国家还包括阿富汗、南苏丹、也门和尼加拉瓜。
美国国会于1990年设立TPS项目，授权国土安全部部长为因战争、自然灾害或其他“极端且临时状况”无法安全返回本国的外国公民提供临时性的国别救济。
该救济期限最长为18个月，但部长可延长TPS资格有效期，且国会未对资格续期次数作出限制。国会同时限定了TPS资格申请人范围，以下外国公民无申请资格：被判重罪或一项以上轻罪者；参与毒品走私者；属于恐怖组织者；以及在美国境内居住会危害国家安全或外交政策者。
奥巴马政府2012年首次将叙利亚纳入TPS范围，理由是时任叙利亚总统巴沙尔·阿萨德镇压反政府抗议活动所引发的“极端且临时状况”。
海地则在2010年首次被奥巴马政府纳入TPS，原因是一场毁灭性地震影响了海地900万人口中的约三分之一。2021年海地总统遇刺后，该国遭遇经济、卫生和政治危机，拜登政府多次延长海地的TPS资格。
但特朗普就职后不久，时任国土安全部部长克里斯蒂·诺姆宣布终止超过6000名叙利亚移民和35万名海地移民的TPS资格。两起案件中，诺姆均称在咨询其他机构并审查两国状况后，认定它们不再符合TPS资格标准。
叙利亚的TPS资格原定于去年11月终止，海地的则定于今年2月。两国移民在诺姆宣布决定后拥有约60天的宽限期，之后驱逐保护将失效。但特朗普政府的终止决定遭到叙利亚和海地的TPS受益者分别提起诉讼，法官同意暂缓执行终止日期。
在叙利亚相关案件中，美国地区法官凯瑟琳·波克·法伊拉认定，此次终止决定部分出于“不当政治干预”。她援引了特朗普本人关于TPS合法性的言论，以及一份行政命令——该命令要求国土安全部撤销他认为助长非法移民的政策。
法伊拉在去年11月的一场听证会上表示，诺姆“只要有机会就试图终止TPS资格，导致终止决定并非基于法律和事实，而是基于与TPS法规无关的政治考量”。
在海地移民提起的诉讼中，美国地区法官安娜·雷耶斯认定，有充分证据表明诺姆终止海地TPS资格的决定部分出于“反黑人和反海地”的敌意。雷耶斯援引了特朗普针对海地的贬损言论，包括他称海地为“粪坑国家”的评论，以及他转发的一则阴谋论——该阴谋论称俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德的海地移民在食用当地居民的宠物。
在上诉法院拒绝暂停有利于叙利亚和海地移民的裁决后，特朗普政府向最高法院提起上诉。最高法院于今年3月宣布将审理政府撤销两国移民保护资格的诉求，但在审理期间保留两国的TPS资格。
最高法院审理的争议焦点
在裁定国土安全部部长的行为是否违法之前，最高法院首先必须解决一个先决问题：法院是否有权审查部长终止叙利亚和海地TPS资格的行为违反联邦法律的主张。
特朗普政府对TPS法规作出广义解释，认为该法规禁止法院对指定、终止或延长救济项目的最终决定，以及部长在作出决定前采取的步骤和分析进行司法审查。
“国会禁止联邦法院对TPS决定指手画脚，无论法院是否对最终结果、部长的决策过程、实质推理或其他任何方面有异议，”副检察长D.约翰·佐尔在最高法院的诉状中写道，“任何相反的做法都会将国会明确的司法审查禁止条款降格为微不足道的障碍，同时将地区法院打造成临时身份政策的终极外交政策监管者。”
佐尔辩称，国会对部长的TPS决定设置了若干程序限制，例如将资格有效期限定为18个月，并要求定期审查。
他指责下级法院“用自身观点取代行政部门关于程序、国家状况和外交政策目标的判断”。
佐尔还称，关于特朗普政府终止海地TPS资格是出于种族敌意的说法是“法律和事实上的无稽之谈”。他驳斥了诺姆在认定海地和叙利亚适合移民返回前未与适当机构（即国务院）协商的指控。
他表示，这一协商要求“并不意味着地区法院可以评判各机构何时进行了充分沟通。法规仅要求国土安全部征求并接收其他机构的意见；国会将由行政部门自行决定协商流程和其他机构提供的细节程度”。
法院审理TPS案件时披露的文件显示，当国土安全部就TPS资格和国家状况向国务院征求意见时，一名国务院官员称终止海地和叙利亚的TPS资格“不存在外交政策方面的顾虑”。该官员还指出，特朗普政府已于2024年底阿萨德政权倒台后解除了对叙利亚的制裁。
但原告方辩称，此次邮件往来未构成充分的协商，违反了TPS法规要求国土安全部与国务院就被驱逐保护国的状况进行讨论的规定。
他们指出，国务院已针对叙利亚和海地发布四级旅行警告，建议美国公民不要前往当地，原因包括绑架、恐怖活动和社会动荡。原告律师表示，这些警告凸显了诺姆的TPS决定前后矛盾。
“法规要求此类决定必须基于国家状况，并与适当机构协商，此处即国务院，”代表叙利亚裔移民的国际难民援助项目律师卢佩·阿吉雷对CBS新闻说道，“无论是在叙利亚、海地，还是在其他系统性终止TPS资格的国家，他们都没有做到这一点。”
为叙利亚和海地移民辩护的律师警告称，如果最高法院认定法院无权审查此类诉求，将使部长的TPS行为免受监督，并导致其权力扩张。
“国会不可能预见到会出现这样一部法规：政府可以肆无忌惮地违反自身制定的法律和指令，却无需承担任何责任，”阿吉雷说，“司法部门履行职责，制约特朗普政府不受约束地行使权力、剥夺100多万合法留美且无法返回危险国家的移民的身份资格，这一点极为重要。”
原告方对TPS法律的解读更为狭义，认为法规仅禁止法院对部长关于国家是否安全、是否应终止或延长保护资格的最终认定进行审查。他们表示，法院可以审查作出该结论的过程，以及部长是否适用了法规中规定的标准。
原告律师援引部长和特朗普的公开声明称，他们的证据表明诺姆终止TPS资格是为了帮助总统实现取消驱逐相关项目的目标，而非基于国家是否适合返回的判断。
“特朗普政府上台时就计划着去合法化——也就是尽可能多地剥夺移民的合法身份，”阿吉雷说，“TPS一直是他们的目标之一，正如我们在每一次系统性终止资格行动中看到的那样，这一计划正在付诸实施。”
为超过100万移民终止TPS资格的行动，只是特朗普第二任期移民政策的一部分。该政策的核心内容之一是大规模驱逐。特朗普曾援引《敌对外侨法》这一战时法律，快速驱逐他所称的帮派成员委内瑞拉移民，并试图暂停美墨边境过境移民申请庇护的渠道。
特朗普还签署了一份行政命令，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，但最高法院似乎大概率会宣布该指令无效。
Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s bid to end deportation shield for Haiti and Syria as thousands brace for ruling
2026-04-28T09:23:56-0400 / CBS News
Washington — Dahlia Doe felt as though her world was shaken.
A Syrian national who came to the U.S. more than a decade ago for college, Dahlia, a pseudonym, has received legal protections through Temporary Protected Status, a program that provides relief from deportation to people from certain countries beset by conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary circumstances.
But in September, the Department of Homeland Security moved to end TPS for more than 6,000 Syrians, giving those authorized to live and work in the United States 60 days to leave the country or risk arrest and deportation.
“I knew that TPS was being targeted. I knew that the Trump administration was going after TPS country after country. But giving us only 60 days was an even further shock and heartbreak for me,” Dahlia told CBS News. “It shows how little our lives matter.”
Dahlia, who is in her 20s, received TPS in 2021. She works as a research director and lives in the Bronx, New York, caring for her father, who has Parkinson’s disease. Her parents are lawful permanent residents and her sister is a U.S. citizen.
A Syrian citizen and passport holder, Dahlia was born in another Middle Eastern country and has never lived in Syria. But if the Trump administration is allowed to move forward with ending TPS for Syrian nationals — an issue that the Supreme Court will weigh Wednesday — Dahlia fears she is at risk of being removed to a country where she has never lived and where she has no immediate family. She and six other Syrian nationals filed a lawsuit last year seeking to stop the Trump administration from stripping away their deportation protections.
“My life would turn into a constant state of fear and uncertainty. Everything I’ve built, my entire adulthood, would vanish right in front of my eyes,” she said. “It’s not just a legal change. It’s not just a policy. It’s disrupting entire lives overnight for people like me who have been here a decade or more.”
The end of TPS for Syria and Haiti
Syria is one of 13 countries for which the Trump administration has moved to roll back temporary protections. The Supreme Court is set to consider Wednesday the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to terminate TPS both for Syria and Haiti, in a pair of cases known as Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot.
The Justice Department and those defending the administration have argued that TPS is supposed to provide temporary relief from deportation. They said the decision to scrap the program for Syrians and Haitians was rooted in protecting national security and public safety.
The Supreme Court last year allowed DHS to revoke protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Venezuela, putting them at risk of removal. Other nations targeted by the Trump administration include Afghanistan, South Sudan, Yemen and Nicaragua.
Congress enacted the TPS program in 1990. It gives the homeland security secretary the power to provide temporary, country-specific relief to foreign nationals who cannot safely return to their home countries because of war, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”
Relief is limited to up to 18 months, but the secretary can provide extensions of TPS designations, and Congress did not limit how many times the protections can be re-upped. Congress also restricted who can receive TPS, deeming ineligible foreign nationals who have been convicted of a felony or more than one misdemeanor; engaged in drug trafficking; belong to a terrorist group; or whose presence in the U.S. would endanger national security or foreign policy.
The Obama administration first designated Syria for TPS in 2012, citing “extraordinary and temporary conditions” stemming from former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown on anti-government protests.
Haiti, meanwhile, was designated for TPS for the first time by the Obama administration in 2010 because of a devastating earthquake, which affected roughly one-third of Haiti’s population of 9 million people. The Biden administration extended TPS for Haiti several times because of economic, health and political crises in the wake of the assassination of its president in 2021.
But soon after Mr. Trump took office, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem moved to end the programs for more than 6,000 Syrian immigrants and 350,000 Haitians. In both cases, Noem found that after consulting with other agencies and reviewing conditions in the two countries, they no longer met the criteria for TPS.
Syria’s designation was set to end last November and Haiti’s in February. Immigrants from both countries had roughly 60 days from Noem’s announcement to when their deportation protections would expire. But the administration’s terminations were challenged by TPS beneficiaries from Syria, led by Dahlia, and Haiti in two separate lawsuits, and judges agreed to postpone the effective dates.
In the case involving Syria, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla found in part that the termination was motivated by “undue political influence.” She cited statements from Mr. Trump about the legality of the TPS program and an executive order directing DHS to rescind policies that he said contributed to illegal immigration.
Failla said during a November hearing that Noem “endeavored to terminate TPS status whenever presented with an opportunity to do so, resulting in termination decisions that are ground not in law and not in fact, but that are in political considerations simply not relevant under the TPS statute.”
In the case brought by Haitians protected by the program, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes found there was sufficient evidence that Noem’s decision to terminate TPS for Haiti was motivated in part by “anti-Black and anti-Haitian” animus. Reyes cited derogatory statements about Haiti from Mr. Trump, including his comment calling Haiti a “s**thole country,” and his amplification of a conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating residents’ pets.
The Trump administration sought review from the Supreme Court after appeals courts declined to pause the rulings in favor of the Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The high court said in March it would consider the government’s efforts to roll back the protections for Syrians and Haitians, but it left TPS for the two countries in place while it considers the case.
The dispute before the Supreme Court
Before weighing whether the secretary of homeland security acted unlawfully, the Supreme Court must first decide whether courts can even review the claim that the secretary violated federal law when she moved to end TPS for Syria and Haiti.
The Trump administration has interpreted the TPS statute broadly to bar judicial review of the ultimate decision to designate, terminate or extend the relief program, as well as the steps and analysis taken by the secretary in the lead-up to a determination.
“Congress forbade federal courts to second-guess TPS determinations, no matter whether courts would cavil with the final outcome, the Secretary’s decisional process, the substantive reasoning, or something else,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a Supreme Court brief. “Any contrary approach would reduce Congress’s robust judicial-review bar to a minor speedbump while installing district courts as the ultimate foreign-policy superintendents of temporary status.”
Sauer argued that Congress imposed several procedural checks on the secretary’s TPS decisions, such as by limiting designations to 18 months and requiring them to be reviewed at regular intervals.
He accused the lower courts of “substituting their own views for those of the Executive as to procedures, country conditions, and foreign-policy objectives.”
Sauer also called the suggestion that the Trump administration’s move to end TPS for Haiti rested on racial animus a “legal and factual nonstarter.” He rejected claims that Noem failed to consult with the appropriate agencies, namely the State Department, before concluding that Haiti and Syria were safe for immigrants to return to.
That consultation requirement, he said, “does not invite district courts to sit in judgment of when agencies have communicated enough. All the statute requires is that DHS solicit and receive other agencies’ views; Congress left the Executive Branch to resolve how that process happens and how much detail other agencies provide.”
Documents produced in court cases involving TPS show that when DHS reached out to the State Department about the protections and country conditions, a State Department official stated there are “no foreign policy concerns” with ending the programs for Haiti and Syria. The official also noted that the Trump administration lifted sanctions on Syria last year following the collapse of the Assad regime in late 2024.
The challengers, though, argued that the email exchange was not adequate consultation, violating the TPS statute’s requirement for discussion between the DHS and State Department on the conditions in countries whose nationals are shielded from deportation.
They noted that the State Department has issued Level 4 travel advisories for both Syria and Haiti warning Americans against traveling there because of kidnapping, terrorist activity and unrest. The plaintiffs’ lawyers said those advisories highlight the inconsistencies with Noem’s TPS decisions.
“In the statute, it says that these decisions need to be made based on country conditions and after consulting with appropriate agencies, which is here the Department of State,” Lupe Aguirre, a lawyer with the International Refugee Assistance Project, which is representing the Syrian nationals, told CBS News. “They simply did not do that here or in Haiti or in the numerous other countries that have systematically terminated TPS status for.”
Lawyers for both the Haitian and Syrian immigrants warned that if the Supreme Court finds that courts have no role to play, it would insulate the secretary’s actions regarding TPS from scrutiny and lead to an expansion of his power.
“Congress could not possibly have envisioned writing a statute where the government could very unabashedly violate the law, the mandates that they themselves created, and not have to account for it,” Aguirre said. “It’s extremely important that the judiciary exercise its duty to check the Trump administration’s efforts to wield unfettered power and strip away the status of over 1 million people that have been here lawfully and cannot return to unsafe countries.”
The plaintiffs take a more narrow view of the TPS law and argue that it bars judicial review only of the secretary’s determination as to the safety of a country, and whether the protections should therefore be ended or extended. Courts, however, can scrutinize the process taken to reach that conclusion and whether the secretary applied the criteria laid out in the law, they said.
Pointing to public statements from the secretary and Mr. Trump, lawyers for the challenges said they show that Noem moved to end TPS to help the president achieve his goal of rolling back the deportation programs, regardless of whether a country was safe to return to.
“The Trump administration came into office with the plan to try to de-document — that is, strip away the lawful status of as many immigrants as possible,” Aguirre said. “TPS was on the chopping block, and as we have seen with every systematic termination, that has come to bear.”
The efforts to end TPS for more than 1 million immigrants are just one aspect of Mr. Trump’s second-term immigration agenda, a centerpiece of which is mass deportations. The president has invoked a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelans his administration alleges are gang members and attempted to suspend access to the asylum system for migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico 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, though the Supreme Court appears poised to invalidate the directive.