2026-09-29T18:18:11.72Z / 路透社
作者：简·沃尔夫
2026年9月29日 美国东部时间下午6:18 更新，1小时前更新
2026年1月19日，一架载有从美国被遣返的委内瑞拉移民的航班抵达委内瑞拉迈奎蒂亚的西蒙·玻利瓦尔国际机场，一名戴着手铐的委内瑞拉移民出现在飞机舷窗内。路透社/马可·贝洛/资料照片
- 内容摘要
- 法官詹姆斯·博阿斯伯格就特朗普政府是否违反法庭命令展开调查
- 上诉法院此前曾叫停博阿斯伯格的调查，但随后投票决定重审此案
- 多名法官似乎对特朗普政府终止调查的诉求持怀疑态度
华盛顿9月29日电（路透社）——美国司法部一名律师周二向上诉法院提出请求，要求终止法官对特朗普政府官员是否故意违反司法命令的调查，该命令要求其停止向萨尔瓦多遣返委内瑞拉移民的航班。
这场持续三小时的口头辩论是唐纳德·特朗普总统与美国地区法官詹姆斯·博阿斯伯格之间长期对峙的最新进展。博阿斯伯格一直在调查为何其命令被置若罔闻，这场争端已成为检验司法机构调查行政部门决策权力的试金石。
订阅《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律资讯直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的清晨时光。[点击此处注册]。
广告 · 滚动继续
美国司法部律师布雷特·舒梅特在华盛顿举行的哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院口头辩论中表示，博阿斯伯格发起的刑事藐视法庭调查“非法、毫无必要且徒劳无功”。
“本案中的地区法院法官逾越了司法职责范围，”舒梅特补充道。
今年早些时候，由三名法官组成的哥伦比亚特区巡回法院合议庭以2比1的裁决叫停了博阿斯伯格的藐视法庭调查，但该中级法院所有11名在职法官都投票决定重审此案。这家知名上诉法院共有7名民主党任命的法官和4名共和党任命的法官。
周二，部分法官似乎对舒梅特的论点持怀疑态度，表示博阿斯伯格恰当地援引了联邦刑事诉讼规则，该规则允许法官调查藐视法庭行为并将案件移交起诉。
美国巡回法院法官J·米歇尔·蔡尔兹是民主党总统乔·拜登任命的法官，他表示博阿斯伯格只是在进行“事实调查，以了解发生了什么，以及为何违反了地区法院的口头和书面命令”。
“地区法院必须查明发生了什么，谁在会议室里提供建议，”由民主党总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命的巡回法院法官帕特里夏·米利特说道。
这场争端源于美国公民自由联盟代表特朗普政府根据《敌对外侨法》被遣返的委内瑞拉男性提起的诉讼，原告辩称政府的遣返航班行为非法。
这项1798年出台的法律在美国历史上极少被援引，它赋予总统拘留和驱逐非公民的广泛权力。
blob:https://www.reuters.com/63c08e8d-4cc6-4d9c-a12f-476653de45ce
此次诉讼核心的委内瑞拉男性去年从萨尔瓦多一所监狱获释，并作为美国斡旋的囚犯交换计划的一部分返回委内瑞拉。
博阿斯伯格去年得出结论，政府在他紧急开展法庭程序评估此次遣返行动合法性的同时，匆忙安排了三次遣返航班，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举报人前部门律师出庭作证。
在今年4月发布的2比1裁决中，三名法官组成的合议庭表示，博阿斯伯格的请求侵犯了“行政部门的自主权”，并“打算就国家安全和外交事务事项调查行政部门的高层审议情况”。
广告 · 滚动继续
美国公民自由联盟律师李·杰伦特在听证会上表示，博阿斯伯格行事勇敢，拒绝让行政部门无视法庭权威。
“此前没有任何司法部或行政官员采取过如此恶劣的行为，如此藐视司法机构，”杰伦特说道。
“如果你们不支持地区法院的做法，将会传递一个极其糟糕的信号，”他说。
简·沃尔夫在华盛顿报道；亚历克西娅·加拉姆法尔维与丹尼尔·沃利斯编辑
本机构报道准则：路透社信托原则。
US appeals court mulls contempt probe over Trump deportation flights
2026-09-29T18:18:11.72Z / Reuters
By Jan Wolfe
September 29, 2026 6:18 PM UTC Updated 1 hour ago
A Venezuelan migrant in handcuffs appears in an aircraft window, as the flight carrying Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States arrives at Simon Bolivar International Airport, in Maiquetia, Venezuela, January 19, 2026. REUTERS/Marco Bello/File Photo
- Summary
- Judge James Boasberg has probed whether Trump administration violated a court order
- Appeals court earlier blocked Boasberg’s inquiry but then voted to rehear the matter
- Some judges appeared skeptical of Trump administration’s bid to end the inquiry
WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (Reuters) – A US Justice Department lawyer asked an appeals court on Tuesday to terminate a judge’s inquiry into whether Trump administration officials willfully violated a judicial order directing them to stop deportation flights of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador.
The three-hour oral argument was the latest development in a long-running standoff between President Donald Trump and US District Judge James Boasberg, who has sought to determine why his order was ignored, in a dispute that has become a test of the judiciary’s power to investigate executive branch decision-making.
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
DOJ attorney Brett Shumate told the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit during an oral argument in Washington that the criminal contempt probe by Boasberg was “unlawful, unnecessary, and futile.”
“The district court judge here is going beyond the judicial role,” Shumate added.
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel blocked Boasberg’s contempt probe in a 2-1 ruling earlier this year, but all 11 of the sitting judges on the intermediate court voted to rehear the case. The prominent appeals court has seven Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees.
Some of the judges on Tuesday appeared skeptical of Shumate’s arguments, saying Boasberg had properly invoked a federal rule of criminal procedure that allows a judge to investigate defiance of a court order and refer the matter for prosecution.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, said Boasberg was simply conducting “fact-finding to know what happened and know why there was a violation of the district court’s order, oral and written.”
“The district court has to find out what happened and who was in the room providing the advice,” said Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama.
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.
The 1798 law, which has been invoked rarely in US history, gives presidents broad powers to detain and deport non-citizens.
blob:https://www.reuters.com/63c08e8d-4cc6-4d9c-a12f-476653de45ce
The Venezuelan men at the center of the litigation were released from a Salvadoran prison last year and returned to Venezuela as part of a US-brokered prisoner swap.
Boasberg concluded last year 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 the 2-1 ruling issued in April, the three-judge panel said Boasberg’s request had encroached on “the autonomy of the executive branch” and “proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy.”
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said during the hearing that Boasberg had acted courageously and refused to allow the executive branch to thumb its nose at him.
“No prior DOJ or administrator has ever taken these kinds of egregious actions and been so disrespectful to the judiciary,” Gelernt said.
“If you don’t uphold what this district court did, it will send a horrible message,” he said.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Daniel Wallis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复