2026-04-25T10:07:04.527Z / 路透社
摘要
- 最高法院将于周三听取辩论
- 涉及海地人和叙利亚人的临时保护身份
- 终止TSP是特朗普限制移民举措之一
- 美国政府曾出于人道主义原因授予TSP身份
4月25日（路透社电）——在唐纳德·特朗普总统向美国最高法院为其撤销人道主义保护举措的辩护中，核心论点之一格外醒目：法院无权审查其政府在该领域的决定。这些保护措施原本可为数十万移民提供驱逐庇护。
纽约和华盛顿特区的联邦法官曾阻止特朗普政府剥夺超过35万海地人和6000叙利亚人的合法身份，该身份由美国政府授予，可保护他们免遭驱逐。目前，美国政府以普遍存在的暴力、犯罪、恐怖主义和绑架为由，警告民众切勿因任何原因前往这两个国家。
最高法院将于周三就政府针对上述两项裁决的上诉进行口头辩论，以捍卫前国土安全部长克里斯蒂·诺姆终止海地和叙利亚公民临时保护身份（TSP）的举措。
自2025年1月再次就职以来，撤销TSP及其他人道主义保护措施是特朗普针对合法与非法移民展开全面打击的一部分。
最高法院在受理此案时，并未同意政府关于在案件审理期间立即终止海地人和叙利亚人TSP保护的请求。去年在类似情况下，法院曾允许政府终止委内瑞拉人的TSP保护。
战争与灾难
根据美国1990年《移民法案》，TPS是一项指定身份，允许来自遭受战争、自然灾害或其他灾难国家的移民在美国生活和工作，直至他们返回母国不再面临安全风险。
原告方表示，这场法律纠纷可能产生广泛影响，涉及来自17个获得TSP指定国家的130万移民。截至目前，特朗普政府已试图撤销其中13个国家的保护身份。
下级法院在TSP终止案中裁定政府败诉，认为官员未遵循《移民法案》规定的程序，在撤销某国指定身份前未对该国状况进行评估。
特朗普政府的司法部对这些裁决提出异议，并提出了一项更广泛的论点，可能会彻底终结后续的相关挑战。该部门声称，法院根本无权质疑其TSP决定。
“《TSP法案》明确禁止对攻击部长TSP决定的主张进行司法审查，包括这些决定背后的程序和分析，”司法部在提交给最高法院的文件中表示。
在此次及其他事务中，特朗普一贯主张扩大总统权力范围，同时限制司法权限。
为挑战政府行动的叙利亚TPS受益人代理律师阿希兰·阿鲁拉南坦表示，这场法律斗争“牵涉巨大利益”。“如果政府的主张成立，那么他们根本无需开展任何国家状况审查就能终止TSP——他们可以出于完全任意的理由这么做，”阿鲁拉南坦说道。
作为加州大学洛杉矶分校法学院移民法律与政策中心的联合主任，阿鲁拉南坦在一次电话会议上告诉记者，政府的整体行动并非反映联邦机构的理性决策，而是一场彻底终止TSP的协同努力。
“这本质上是对这项国会法案的宣战，”阿鲁拉南坦补充道。
目前最高法院由6名保守派大法官和3名自由派大法官组成，此前曾多次批准共和党总统提出的请求，在法律挑战仍在法院审理期间立即实施各项强硬移民政策。例如，法院允许特朗普将移民驱逐至与其毫无关联的国家，并允许联邦特工以种族或语言为由将人员作为驱逐目标。
虚假声明
特朗普在首次总统任期内曾试图撤销TSP保护但未能成功，而在竞选连任期间明确表示会再次尝试。例如，特朗普在俄亥俄州发表虚假且带有贬损性的言论，称海地移民食用家养宠物后，曾誓言要撤销他们的TSP身份。
作为特朗普任命的官员，诺姆迅速针对多国的TSP指定身份采取行动，包括在2025年2月1日终止数十万委内瑞拉人的保护身份。
部分TSP受益人已在美国生活多年，一旦被驱逐可能会失去工作和家庭，他们表示将他们送回面临危险甚至死亡的国家是残酷的。
“临时保护身份顾名思义就是临时的。无论左翼组织多么希望将其作为永久身份或合法居留的途径，这都绝非其初衷，”白宫发言人阿比盖尔·杰克逊在给路透社的一份声明中说道。
在民主党人巴拉克·奥巴马执政期间，海地于2010年遭遇毁灭性地震后首次获得TSP身份，叙利亚则在2012年国内爆发内战之后获得该身份。由于两国持续的危机，美国政府多次延长了这一身份的有效期。
诺姆于去年9月提出撤销叙利亚的TSP身份，去年11月提出撤销海地的该身份，称指定身份不符合美国国家利益，部分原因是难以对来自这些国家的移民进行筛查和背景审查。特朗普于3月解雇诺姆时，其TSP相关决定并未成为争议焦点。
叙利亚和海地的TPS持有者群体提起集体诉讼，称终止通知只是政府终止现有指定身份计划的借口。诉讼称，诺姆未遵守TSP法律的程序要求，即在撤销保护身份前应就国内状况咨询其他联邦机构。
原告方表示，所谓的咨询仅为一名国务院官员回复国土安全部官员的电子邮件，称终止指定身份“不存在外交政策方面的担忧”。
司法审查
特朗普政府的司法部称，支持原告的裁决“是邀请法院充当跨部门讨论的裁判，要求机构提供详尽说明，并评判多少咨询才算足够”。
但如果法院接受司法部更大胆的论点，即无论如何政府的行动都不受审查，那么这一辩护就没有必要了。
司法部援引1990年法案中“不得对授予、延长或终止TSP的任何决定进行司法审查”的条款，称该条款不仅包括最终结果，还包括背后的决策。在书面文件中，司法部警告不要“将地区法院打造成临时身份的最终外交政策监管者”。
特朗普政府曾多次提出这一主张，称法院无权审查总统行政部门某些行动的合法性。据路透社分析，这是特朗普政府对抗司法权力的更广泛举措的一部分，此前在多项针对其政策的挑战中都提出过类似论点。
原告方表示，政府的立场甚至会将非法行动也纳入豁免范围。他们辩称，该法案允许法院审查联邦官员是否遵守法定程序要求。
他们还援引了2019年最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决阻止特朗普在全国人口普查中加入公民身份问题，反对者称此举是共和党为阻止移民参与十年一次的人口普查而采取的行动。法院认定，政府官员提出的增加该问题的理由是借口和编造的。
“对非白人的敌意”
在海地相关案件中，美国地区法官安娜·雷耶斯裁定，政府的行动可能部分出于“种族敌意”，违反了美国宪法第五修正案规定的法律平等保护原则。
雷耶斯引用了特朗普和诺姆的言论，包括这位前国土安全部长在社交媒体上称移民为“杀手”和“水蛭”的帖子。
“原告指控诺姆部长预先决定了其终止决定，并且这么做是出于对非白人移民的敌意。这似乎极有可能，”雷耶斯写道。
司法部否认存在任何种族歧视，称特朗普或诺姆未发表任何涉及种族的言论。司法部表示，最高法院应遵循此前的先例，在移民、外交政策和国家安全事务上尊重政府的判断。
预计最高法院将在6月底左右作出裁决。
安德鲁·钟 纽约报道；威尔·邓纳姆 编辑
In Supreme Court fight against deportation shield, Trump says judges have no role
2026-04-25T10:07:04.527Z / Reuters
Summary
Supreme Court to hear arguments on Wednesday
Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, Syrians at issue
Ending TPS among Trump’s actions restricting immigration
US government awarded TPS status for humanitarian reasons
April 25 (Reuters) – Among President Donald Trump’s main arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court defending his moves to rescind humanitarian protections that shield hundreds of thousands of immigrants from deportation, one stands out: Courts cannot review his administration’s decisions in this area.
Federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C., barred Trump’s administration from stripping from more than 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians a legal status provided by the U.S. government that protects them from deportation. Citing widespread violence, crime, terrorism and kidnapping, the administration currently warns against traveling to either of these countries for any reason.
The justices are due to hear arguments on Wednesday in the administration’s appeals of those rulings as it defends former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s actions to terminate Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for people from Haiti and Syria.
Revoking TPS and other humanitarian protections is part of Trump’s broader crackdown on legal and illegal immigration since he returned to office in January 2025.
When it took up the matter, the Supreme Court did not act on the administration’s request to immediately end TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians while the case plays out. The court under similar circumstances last year let the administration end TPS for Venezuelans.
WARS AND DISASTERS
Under a U.S. law called the Immigration Act of 1990, TPS is a designation that allows migrants from countries stricken by war, natural disaster or other catastrophes to live and work in the United States while it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries.
The legal dispute could have wide implications, affecting 1.3 million immigrants from all 17 TPS-designated countries, according to the plaintiffs. Trump’s administration has sought to rescind the protections for 13 of those countries so far.
Lower courts have ruled against the administration’s TPS terminations, finding that officials failed to follow protocols required under the Immigration Act to assess conditions in a country before revoking its designation.
Trump’s Justice Department disputes those points and makes a broader argument that could doom challenges going forward, asserting that courts cannot second-guess its TPS decisions in the first place.
“The TPS statute unambiguously bars judicial review of claims that attack the secretary’s TPS determinations, including the procedures and analysis underlying those determinations,” the department said in a Supreme Court filing.
In this and other matters, Trump has asserted an expansive view of presidential powers and a limited view of judicial purview.
Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for the Syrian TPS recipients who challenged the administration’s actions, said “a huge amount is at stake” in the legal fight. “If the government is correct, then they can terminate TPS without conducting any country conditions review at all – they can do it for reasons that are completely arbitrary,” Arulanantham said.
The administration’s actions overall do not reflect a federal agency’s reasoned decision-making but rather a concerted effort to end TPS entirely, Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA School of Law’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, told reporters during a conference call.
“This really is about a war on this congressional statute,” Arulanantham added.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has granted the Republican president’s requests to immediately implement various hardline immigration policies while legal challenges continue to play out in courts. For instance, it let Trump deport immigrants to countries where they have no ties and let federal agents target people for deportation based in part on their race or language.
FALSE CLAIMS
Trump, who sought but failed to rescind TPS protections during his first term as president, made clear while running for reelection he would try again. For instance, Trump vowed to revoke TPS for Haitian immigrants after making false and derogatory claims that they were eating household pets in Ohio.
Noem, a Trump appointee, moved quickly to act on TPS designations for countries, including on February 1, 2025, to end the protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans.
TPS recipients, some of whom have been in the United States for years and could face separation from jobs and families, have said it is cruel to consider sending them back to countries where they risk danger and even death.
“Temporary Protected Status is, by definition, temporary. It was never intended to be a pathway to permanent status or legal residency, no matter how badly left-wing organizations want it to be,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Reuters.
During Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency, Haitians were first given TPS in 2010 after a devastating earthquake, and Syrians in 2012 after the country plunged into a civil war. The U.S. government repeatedly extended the statuses amid continuing crises in those countries.
Noem moved to revoke TPS for Syria last September and for Haiti last November, stating the designations were contrary to U.S. national interest in part due to difficulties screening and vetting migrants from those countries. Noem’s TPS decisions were not at issue when Trump fired her in March.
Groups of Syrian and Haitian TPS holders filed class action lawsuits alleging the termination notices were mere pretext for the administration’s plan to end existing designations. The lawsuit said Noem did not comply with the TPS law’s procedural mandate to consult other federal agencies concerning conditions inside a country before revoking its protective status.
The plaintiffs said the consultation consisted of a State Department official replying to a Homeland Security Department official’s email to say there were “no foreign policy concerns” with ending the designations.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Trump’s Justice Department has said rulings backing the plaintiffs in the cases are “an invitation for courts to referee interagency discussions, demand agency verbosity and gauge how much consultation is enough.”
But that defense would be unnecessary if the court accepts the Justice Department’s bolder argument that, in any event, the administration’s actions are shielded from scrutiny.
Leaning on a section of the 1990 statute that states there is no judicial review “of any determination” with respect to giving, extending or ending TPS, it said that includes not only final outcomes but also the decisions behind them. In a written filing, it warned against “installing district courts as the ultimate foreign-policy superintendents of temporary status.”
The argument that courts have no role in reviewing the legality of certain actions by a presidential administration is a familiar one for Trump. His administration has made it in numerous challenges to his policies, part of a broader push against the power of judges, according to a Reuters analysis.
The plaintiffs said the administration’s position would insulate even unlawful actions. They contend the statute lets courts scrutinize the compliance of federal officials with statutory procedural requirements.
They also cite a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that blocked Trump from adding a citizenship question to the national census, a move opponents called a Republican effort to deter immigrants from taking part in the decadal population count. The court decided that the stated reasons by administration officials for adding the question were pretextual and contrived.
‘HOSTILITY TO NON-WHITES’
In the Haiti case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes decided the administration’s action likely was motivated in part by “racial animus,” violating the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment promise of equal protection under the law.
Reyes referenced statements by Trump and Noem, including the former homeland security secretary’s social media post labeling immigrants killers and leeches.
“Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely,” Reyes wrote.
The Justice Department disputes any racial discrimination, saying no statement by Trump or Noem mentions race. It said the Supreme Court should apply its precedents offering deference to the administration on immigration, foreign policy and national security matters.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by around the end of June.
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham