2026-09-29T19:08:26.079Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
更新于2分钟前
更新时间：2026年9月29日，美国东部时间下午3:31
发布时间：2026年9月29日，美国东部时间下午3:08
Getty Images
美国最高法院周二允许特朗普政府重启一项政策，将移民递解至其祖国以外的国家，且不给予他们提出人权关切的机会，并表示将于今年晚些时候就该案进行口头辩论。
这一标志着最高法院第三次临时允许特朗普政府执行该项遣返举措。
最高法院的三名自由派大法官对该决定表示反对。
尽管特朗普政府如今可以继续推行该政策，但最高法院同时表示，将于今年12月就该案的实质问题进行听证，将这起涉及特朗普政府的备受关注的移民上诉案件纳入审理日程。预计将于7月前作出判决。
该政府于去年推出这项政策，作为其打击移民行动的一部分。如果移民原籍国政府拒绝接收移民，美国有时会难以将其递解回国。唐纳德·特朗普总统针对这一问题的解决方案是，将这些移民递解至其他国家，即便该移民与目的地国家毫无关联。
据估计，已有约2.5万名移民根据这项政策被递解出境。
去年，移民权益团体披露，原本被送往南苏丹的一批移民在吉布提被拘留后，该政策受到了审查。这些移民被关押在经过改造的集装箱货运船舱内。
最高法院确定了三项用于审理实质问题的明确议题，包括审理特朗普败诉一案的地区法院是否具有管辖权、是否有权就所有受影响人群作出裁决，以及特朗普政府的政策是否合法。最高法院还表示，特朗普政府可以提出其认为适当的“其他议题”。
最高法院未在一份简短的无署名命令中解释其推理过程。而三名原本会阻止该政策的自由派大法官也未书面解释他们的立场。
特朗普于9月24日提起紧急上诉，要求暂停波士顿联邦第一巡回上诉法院的一项裁决，该裁决实际上叫停了此类遣返行动。特朗普政府辩称，时间至关重要，因为上诉法院的裁决“给正在进行的遣返行动造成了严重的后勤问题”。
最高法院去年曾在该案的早期阶段审查过这项政策，并在三名自由派大法官反对的情况下允许政策继续执行——这三名大法官是索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊。随后，最高法院在一起涉及被关押在吉布提军事基地数周的特定移民群体的案件中再次支持了特朗普政府。
美国司法部在上诉中抱怨，尽管最高法院多次裁决允许该政策，但下级法院仍“变本加厉”地作出不利于该政策的裁决。特朗普政府表示，最新的裁决引发了“混乱”，并且在根据法院命令取消搭载数十名移民的航班后，“需要开展新一轮的外交接触”。
但代表移民的团体指出，下级法院已就该案作出最终判决，这与此前上诉至最高法院的初步裁决有所不同。最高法院在紧急审理程序中作出的裁决并非关于案件实质问题的最终判决，即便它们可能暗示了最高法院的倾向。
该案的核心法律问题围绕1994年经参议院批准的《禁止酷刑公约》展开，该公约通常禁止将移民递解或引渡至有可能使其遭受酷刑的国家。该法律对于政府应如何作出相关认定，以及应给予涉案移民何种程序权利的规定较为模糊。
下级法院认定，该法律要求向移民发出通知，并要求官员给予该移民提出可信的酷刑恐惧主张的机会。美国国土安全部则表示，只要官员收到该国的全面保证，即保证被递解至该国的人员不会遭受酷刑，就已足够。
“拒绝暂缓执行并不会阻止第三国遣返，”移民的律师在向最高法院提交的文件中表示，“相反，这只是要求他们依法行事。”
本文已更新补充更多细节。
Supreme Court allows Trump to restart controversial deportations to countries they have no connection to
2026-09-29T19:08:26.079Z / CNN
By John Fritze
Updated 2 min ago
Updated Sep 29, 2026, 3:31 PM ET
PUBLISHED Sep 29, 2026, 3:08 PM ET
Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to restart its program of removing migrants to countries other than their homeland without giving them an opportunity to raise human rights concerns, and said it would hear arguments in the case later this year.
The decision marked the third time the high court has allowed the Trump administration to enforce that effort on a temporary basis.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from that decision.
But while the Trump administration can continue the program now, the court also said it would hear merits arguments in the case this December, adding a high profile immigration appeal involving the Trump administration to its docket. A decision is expected by July.
The administration launched the policy last year as part of its crackdown on immigration. The United States has at times faced difficulty attempting to deport migrants to their home countries if the leadership in those countries declines to receive them. President Donald Trump’s answer to that problem was to deport those migrants to some other country, even if the migrant had no ties to the destination.
An estimated 25,000 migrants have already been removed under the policy.
It drew scrutiny last year after immigrant rights groups revealed that one group of migrants, initially bound for South Sudan, were being detained in Djibouti. Those migrants were held in a converted Conex shipping container.
The Supreme Court set three defined questions to decide on the merits, including whether the district court that ruled against Trump had jurisdiction to resolve the case, whether it had authority to decide it for the entire class of people affected and whether the Trump administration’s policy is lawful. It also said the Trump administration could propose “other questions” it deemed appropriate.
The court did not explain its reasoning in a brief, unsigned order. And the three liberal justices who would have blocked the policy also did not write to explain their position.
Trump filed an emergency appeal on September 24 seeking to pause a decision from the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals that effectively blocked the removals. The administration had argued that time was of the essence because the appeals court decision had “created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations.”
The Supreme Court had already reviewed the policy at an earlier stage of the case last year and allowed it to continue over the dissent of the three liberals – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court then sided again with the administration in a case involving a specific group of migrants that had been held for several weeks on a military base in Djibouti.
The Justice Department, in its appeal, complained that lower courts had “tripled down” with rulings against the policy despite the repeated Supreme Court decisions allowing it. The administration said the latest decision had caused “chaos” and “required a new round of diplomatic engagement” after it was required by the court order to cancel flights carrying dozens of migrants.
But the groups representing the migrants noted that the lower courts had entered a final judgment in the case, which is different from the earlier preliminary decisions that reached the Supreme Court before. The high court’s decisions on its emergency docket are not final decisions on the merits of the case, even if they offer an indication about which way the court is leaning.
The legal question at the center of the case revolves around the Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Senate in 1994, that generally bars deportation or extradition to countries where there is a possibility that the migrant might be tortured. The law is vague about how an administration is supposed to make that determination and what process rights are due to the migrant at issue.
Lower courts have found the law requires notice to the migrant and demands that officials give the person an opportunity to raise a credible claim of fear that they might be tortured. The Department of Homeland Security said it is enough that officials have received blanket assurances from the country that no one deported there will be tortured.
“Denying a stay does not prevent third-country removals,” attorneys for the migrants told the Supreme Court. “Rather, it simply requires them to do so lawfully.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
发表回复