By Devan Cole | 2小时前 | 发布于 2026年2月6日，美国东部时间晚上10:56
2026年1月14日，在明尼阿波利斯的一次移民执法行动中，一名联邦探员在街上拦住一名男子进行询问后将其逮捕。
Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu/Getty Images
周五，一个意见分歧的联邦上诉法院以2比1的投票结果支持了特朗普政府拘留数百万无证移民的政策，即便这些人在美国生活了数十年，也无权质疑自己被拘留的决定。这一裁决为正寻求推行大规模驱逐行动的总统唐纳德·特朗普带来了重大胜利。
美国第五巡回上诉法院（保守派法院）的2比1裁决意味着，在几个南部州，许多非法居住在美国的移民——包括那些在移民系统案件审理过程中曾被允许保释的人——现在可以被拘留，且无法通过移民法官的保释听证会寻求释放。
在全国数千起案件中，联邦法官一直裁定特朗普政府去年推出的这项政策非法，但周五的裁决标志着上诉法院首次支持该政策。该裁决仅适用于得克萨斯州、路易斯安那州和密西西比州的移民。
专家分析
“在数十个联邦地区法院超过3000起案件中，特朗普政府决定将这一问题上的首次上诉提交给第五巡回法院，这是有原因的。”美国有线电视新闻网最高法院分析师、乔治敦大学法学院教授史蒂夫·弗拉迪克（Steve Vladeck）表示，他此前曾撰写过这些案件中的法律纠纷相关文章。
“第五巡回法院不仅是美国最倾向保守的上诉法院；政府选择的这个小组中有两名该法院最保守的法官。很难想象他们会是最终的定案者。”他补充道。
尽管美国其他上诉法院仍在审查该政策，但第五巡回法院的裁决可能将该政策推上最高法院的对决舞台。
多数派意见
周五的多数派裁决由前总统里根任命的法官伊迪丝·琼斯（Edith Jones）撰写，特朗普任命的凯尔·邓肯（Kyle Duncan）法官加入了她的意见。
两位共和党任命的法官表示，虽然特朗普政府扭转了数十年来允许移民在移民案件审理期间保释的行政部门政策，但现任官员有权做出这一转变。
“前几届政府未能充分行使其执法权……并不意味着他们缺乏采取更严格措施的权力。”琼斯写道。
在往届政府时期，非法进入美国、后来在边境以外被抓获且无犯罪记录的非公民，在移民案件审理期间可以保释。这一长期政策与边境被拘留移民的待遇形成对比——后者可能被迅速驱逐，无权申请保释。
少数派异议
前总统拜登任命的法官达娜·道格拉斯（Dana Douglas）在异议意见中警告称，多数派裁决可能导致美国境内200万非公民被无保释拘留。
“政府今天声称有权并负有责任拘留数百万非公民，其中一些人在美国居住了数十年，条件与在边境被抓获的人相同。”她写道，“但这一所谓的‘新授权’没有历史先例，并且无视了移民法的核心区别之一。”
“多数派似乎无法想象，一个人在没有适当可接纳证明的情况下在美国境内被拘留，且没有保释听证会，会意味着什么——他们可能需要聘请联邦人身保护令律师来证明自己有权获释，并有机会再次看到拘留中心外的世界。”
道格拉斯继续写道：“这不仅是一个人道主义同情的问题，更是理解移民法核心区别之一以及这样做的充分理由的问题。”
Appeals court greenlights Trump admin policy of detaining undocumented immigrants without opportunity to seek release
By Devan Cole | 2 hr ago | PUBLISHED Feb 6, 2026, 10:56 PM ET
A federal agent arrests a man after stopping and questioning him in the street during an Immigration Enforcement Operation in Minneapolis on January 14, 2026.
Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu/Getty Images
A divided federal appeals court on Friday ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of detaining millions of undocumented immigrants, even those who have been living in the US for decades, without the opportunity to challenge their detention, handing President Donald Trump a major win as he seeks to carry out an aggressive deportation campaign.
The 2-1 ruling from the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals means that in several southern states, scores of immigrants who had been living in the US unlawfully, including those who were previously allowed to remain out on bond as their case made its way through the immigration system, can now be detained and denied the opportunity to seek their release through bond hearings before immigration judges.
In thousands of cases around the country, federal judges had consistently ruled that the policy Trump rolled out last year was unlawful, but Friday’s decision marks the first time an appeals court has backed it. The ruling only applies to immigrants in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Ad Feedback
“There’s a reason why, across more than three thousand cases in dozens of federal district courts, the Trump administration decided to have its first appeal of a loss on this issue go to the Fifth Circuit,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who has previously written about the legal dispute in these cases.
“The Fifth Circuit isn’t just the most right-leaning appeals court in the country; the government drew on this panel two of that right-leaning court’s most right-leaning judges. It’s hard to imagine they’re going to get the last word,” he said.
Though other appeals courts around the US are still examining the policy, the 5th Circuit’s ruling tees up a likely showdown over it at the Supreme Court.
Friday’s majority decision was authored by Judge Edith Jones, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, and joined by Judge Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee.
The two Republican appointees said that while the Trump administration had reversed decades of executive branch policy of allowing immigrants to remain out on bond while their immigration cases proceeded, current officials were well within their authority to make the switch.
“That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority … does not mean they lacked the authority to do more,” Jones wrote.
Under prior administrations, noncitizens who had entered the US illegally, were later apprehended away from the border and had no criminal history were able to be released on bond while their immigration cases unfolded. That longstanding policy contrasted with how immigrants who were detained at the border were treated. Those individuals could be placed in expedited removal proceedings without the ability to seek release on bond.
Judge Dana Douglas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, warned in a dissenting opinion that the majority ruling could result in detention without bond for two million noncitizens in the US.
“The government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border,” she wrote. “No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law.”
She continued: “The majority seems to be unable to imagine what it might mean to be detained within the United States without the appropriate proof of admissibility, and, without a bond hearing, to require the services of a federal habeas corpus lawyer to show that one is entitled to release and deserves to see the outside of a detention center again.”
“This is not, or not just, a matter of human sympathy, but rather a matter of understanding one of the core distinctions in immigration law, and the very good reasons for it,” Douglas wrote.