2026年4月14日 16:39:08 UTC / 路透社
作者：扬·沃尔夫
2026年4月14日 下午4:39 UTC 更新于3小时前
节点运行失败
2026年1月19日，一架载有从美国递解出境的委内瑞拉移民的飞机在委内瑞拉迈奎蒂亚的西蒙·玻利瓦尔国际机场降落。路透社/马可·贝洛 购买授权，打开新标签页
内容摘要
- 此次裁决是特朗普在与博阿斯伯格法官的交锋中取得的胜利
- 博阿斯伯格此前已启动刑事藐视法庭程序
- 此次裁决针对的是一起关于委内瑞拉人递解出境的诉讼
- 特朗普政府援引了1798年一项极少被使用的法律
4月14日（路透社）——周二，美国上诉法院阻止一名法官就唐纳德·特朗普政府是否故意违反司法命令、叫停将委内瑞拉移民递解至萨尔瓦多的航班一事展开调查，这对特朗普来说是一场胜利。
美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的一个三人合议庭以2比1的投票结果裁定，联邦地区法官詹姆斯·博阿斯伯格在与政府官员就总统权力边界的对峙中行为失当。
晨间法律新闻速递：《每日案卷》简报将最新法律资讯直接发送至您的收件箱。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
哥伦比亚特区巡回法院认为，博阿斯伯格要求政府官员提供宣誓证词，以确定他们是否故意违反了2025年3月的法院命令——叫停将委内瑞拉移民从美国遣返的飞机，这侵犯了“行政部门的自主权”。
“地区法院打算深入调查行政部门高层关于国家安全和外交事务的审议情况，”巡回法官内奥米·拉奥在提及博阿斯伯格时写道。
拉奥称，博阿斯伯格所启动的藐视法庭程序是“明显滥用自由裁量权”。此类刑事藐视法庭程序可能导致罚款或其他形式的谴责。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
周二的裁决得到了巡回法官贾斯汀·沃克的支持，巡回法官J.米歇尔·蔡尔兹持反对意见。拉奥和沃克均为特朗普任命的法官，蔡尔兹则由民主党前总统乔·拜登任命。
这场纠纷源于美国公民自由联盟代表被特朗普政府根据《敌侨法》递解出境的委内瑞拉男性提起的诉讼，原告方认为政府的递解航班行为非法。
这项1798年的法律在美国历史上极少被援引，它赋予总统广泛权力，可拘留并驱逐与美国处于战争状态或已入侵美国领土的国家的公民。
去年12月，同一合议庭在进一步审议此案期间，曾暂时中止了博阿斯伯格的藐视法庭程序。
博阿斯伯格曾在多起案件中判决特朗普政府败诉。这位总统曾称该法官为“激进左翼疯子”，以及“麻烦制造者和煽动者”。
此次诉讼核心的委内瑞拉男性已于去年夏天从萨尔瓦多一所监狱获释，并作为美国斡旋的囚犯交换协议的一部分返回委内瑞拉。美国指控这些男子是帮派成员，而律师和家属对此说法提出异议。
博阿斯伯格认定，政府在他紧急审理程序以评估该遣返行动合法性的同时，匆忙安排了三次递解航班，这一行为似乎是“恶意为之”。
该法官曾要求一名高级司法部律师以及一名成为吹哨人的前司法部律师出庭作证。
在周二的反对意见中，蔡尔兹表示，博阿斯伯格“只是试图了解2025年3月某个周末的事件经过，包括可能导致故意违反法官某项命令的行为”。
蔡尔兹称，周二的裁决以一种“不仅会影响这些藐视法庭程序，还会在未来针对所有诉讼方的程序中产生回响”的方式阻碍了博阿斯伯格。
美国公民自由联盟律师李·盖伦特在一份声明中表示，美国法律体系“不能容忍行政部门故意违反任何法院命令，更不用说是导致数十名男子在萨尔瓦多一所臭名昭著的古拉格式监狱遭受骇人虐待和酷刑的命令”。
美国代理司法部长托德·布兰奇在X平台上写道，该裁决“最终应该能结束博阿斯伯格法官一年来针对辛勤工作的司法部律师的运动——这些律师正在尽职尽责地打击非法移民”。
扬·沃尔夫报道；诺琳·瓦尔德与威尔·邓汉姆编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则。
US appeals court shields Trump officials from probe over deportation flights
2026-04-14 16:39:08 UTC / Reuters
By Jan Wolfe
April 14, 2026 4:39 PM UTC Updated 3 hours ago
节点运行失败
A plane carrying Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States approaches landing at Simon Bolivar International Airport, in Maiquetia, Venezuela, January 19, 2026. REUTERS/Marco Bello Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
Summary
- Ruling is a win for Trump in clash with Judge Boasberg
- Boasberg had launched a criminal contempt proceeding
- Ruling came in lawsuit over deportations of Venezuelans
- Trump administration invoked rarely used 1798 law
April 14 (Reuters) – In a victory for Donald Trump, a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday blocked a judge from conducting an investigation into whether the Republican president’s administration willfully violated a judicial order directing them to stop deportation flights of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling faulted U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in his standoff with administration officials over the limits of presidential power.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The D.C. Circuit decided that Boasberg encroached on “the autonomy of the executive branch” by demanding sworn testimony from administration officials to determine whether they purposely defied his March 2025 court order to turn around aircraft that were removing the Venezuelans from the United States.
“The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy,” Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote, referring to Boasberg.
But Boasberg’s inquiry, known as a contempt proceeding, was a “clear abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote. Such criminal contempt proceedings can result in fines or other forms of censure.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Rao was joined by Circuit Judge Justin Walker in Tuesday’s decision, with Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs in dissent. Rao and Walker are both Trump judicial appointees. Childs was appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden.
The dispute arose as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Venezuelan men deported by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act, with the plaintiffs arguing that the administration acted unlawfully with the deportation flights.
This 1798 law, which has been invoked rarely in U.S. history, gives presidents broad powers to detain and deport citizens of nations that are at war with the United States or have launched an invasion of U.S. territory.
The same judicial panel in December temporarily halted Boasberg’s contempt proceeding while considering the matter further.
Boasberg has ruled against Trump’s administration in multiple cases. The president has called the judge a “Radical Left Lunatic” as well as a “troublemaker and agitator.”
The Venezuelan men at the center of the litigation were released from a Salvadoran prison last summer and returned to Venezuela as part of a U.S.-brokered prisoner swap. The United States has accused the men of being gang members. Lawyers and family members have disputed that allegation.
Boasberg concluded that the administration appeared to have acted “in bad faith” when it hurriedly assembled three deportation flights at the same time that he was conducting emergency court proceedings to assess the legality of the effort.
The judge sought testimony from a high-ranking Justice Department lawyer, as well as a former department attorney who became a whistleblower.
In her dissent on Tuesday, Childs said Boasberg was “just trying to understand the events of a single weekend in March (2025), including the actions which may have led to the willful violation” of one of the judge’s orders.
Childs said Tuesday’s ruling stymied Boasberg “in a way that will affect not only these contempt proceedings but will also echo in future proceedings against all litigants.”
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement that the U.S. legal system “cannot tolerate the executive branch deliberately violating any court order, much less one that resulted in the horrific abuse and torture of dozens of men at a notorious Salvadoran gulag.”
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on X that the ruling “should finally end Judge Boasberg’s year-long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration.”
Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.