罕见的最高法院盟友质疑：为何一名非法移民在被勒令留在美国境内后仍遭到两次起诉
2026年10月15日 美国东部时间12:56 / 福克斯新闻
作者：亚历克·舍梅尔
最高法院将于本周一开始听取本开庭期涉及枪支权利、宗教自由、移民拘留以及政府权力边界的一系列案件的口头辩论。
保守派最高法院大法官尼尔·戈萨奇与自由派大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔联手质疑联邦政府对一名非法移民的起诉，这是两位大法官之间最新的罕见联盟。
由唐纳德·特朗普总统任命的戈萨奇与前总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命的索托马约尔对政府决定对一名墨西哥国民就非法入境美国一事进行两次起诉表示担忧——即便在他首次定罪后，联邦法院已禁止他离开俄克拉荷马州东区。
这一罕见的配对于周二浮出水面，当时最高法院拒绝受理耶稣·埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔的上诉。埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔辩称，对他的第二次起诉违反了第五修正案中禁止双重危险的保护条款。尽管大法官们一致认为法院不应受理此案，但索托马约尔发表了单独声明，戈萨奇也附议，警告政府的行为存在严重的宪法问题。
戈萨奇称最高法院的意识形态分歧源于“你如何解读法律”，而非政治立场
最高法院大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔与尼尔·戈萨奇本周联合发表声明，质疑联邦政府对一名非法移民的起诉，这是两位大法官一系列不同寻常的宪法联盟中的最新一例。（盖蒂图片社）
“从他服完第一刑期被释放的那一刻起，埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔就面临着一个霍布森选择，”索托马约尔在戈萨奇附议的声明中写道。“在政府看来，无论埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔留在俄克拉荷马州东区，还是离开美国，他都在违法。”
两位大法官质疑，政府如何能在实际上禁止某人离开国家后，再因他留在境内而惩罚他。两人的联合声明将这一情况描述为“宪法层面的荒谬之举”。
考虑到两人截然不同的司法哲学，他们的共识尤其值得关注，但这并非两人首次在反对政府行为的宪法保护问题上达成一致。
2024年11月，索托马约尔与戈萨奇联合质疑，警方在执法行动中损毁私人财产时，房主是否应获得赔偿。几个月后，他们再次联手对无逮捕令的轻罪逮捕表示担忧。在这两起案件以及最新的移民纠纷中，最高法院都拒绝受理上诉，但大法官们都发表了声明，强调他们认为值得关注的宪法问题。
美国最高法院为特朗普政府继续推进第三国驱逐政策扫清了道路，大法官们将在后续审议对该政策的法律挑战。（盖蒂图片社）
两人最近联合公开表达担忧的背景是，此前已被驱逐出境的墨西哥国民埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔于2020年因在被驱逐后再次进入美国而被起诉，这违反了联邦移民法。
「前所未见」：法官披露针对特朗普移民案件的幕后协调
他认罪并服完刑期后被置于监督释放期，根据释放条款，他在此期间明确被禁止未经授权离开俄克拉荷马州东区。
在仍受这些限制期间，埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔在俄克拉荷马州希夫纳被警方拦下，随后再次根据同一联邦移民法规被起诉，该法规禁止曾被驱逐的个人非法出现在美国境内。陪审团随后判定埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔有罪，导致他再次入狱并被延长监督释放期。
第二次起诉促使埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔以双重危险为由对定罪提出质疑，辩称政府实际上因同一持续的非法居留行为对他进行了两次惩罚。
美国第十巡回上诉法院驳回了这一论点，认为当当局发现某人非法居留时，该罪行即告完成，后续发现的情况可支持单独起诉，无需另行证明非法入境。
联邦移民特工于2025年10月31日在伊利诺伊州奈尔斯的一家H-Mart杂货店停车场逮捕一名男子。（摄影：杰米·科尔特·戴维斯/盖蒂图片社）
索托马约尔与戈萨奇对这一推理提出质疑，指出最高法院的先例规定，检察官不能简单地将一项持续犯罪划分为多个时间段以规避双重危险保护。他们的担忧并非埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔最初是否违反了移民法，而是政府能否在没有证据证明单独非法再次入境的情况下，反复起诉他留在美国境内。
大法官们还强调，埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔的缓刑条件限制他不得离开俄克拉荷马州，这意味着政府实际上阻止了他结束随后成为起诉理由的行为。索托马约尔警告称，按照政府的解释，理论上检察官可以就埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔首次定罪后被监禁的每一天分别提起诉讼。
尽管大法官们一致同意法院拒绝审理此案，但该声明仍得以发布。索托马约尔解释称，埃雷拉-萨拉扎尔已被驱逐出美国，并表示希望他的起诉所涉及的特殊情况不会再次发生。
最高法院以围绕其合法性和未来的新问题开启新开庭期
索托马约尔与戈萨奇并未对法院拒绝受理上诉表示异议，而是使用正式称为“关于驳回调卷令的声明”的方式，公开指出宪法关切，并敦促下级法院在未来案件中避免类似问题。
最高法院大法官们于2022年10月7日在最高法院拍摄合影。就座者从左至右：索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官、克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官、美国首席大法官约翰·G·罗伯茨 Jr.、塞缪尔·A·阿利托 Jr.大法官以及埃琳娜·卡根大法官。站在身后者从左至右：艾米·科尼·巴雷特大法官、尼尔·M·戈萨奇大法官、布雷特·M·卡瓦诺大法官以及凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官。（《今日美国》网络通过路透社连线）
这次不同寻常的合作在此前两起案件后上演，当时索托马约尔在最高法院驳回审查申请后发表了附戈萨奇意见的声明。
2024年11月，两人在德克萨斯州的“贝克诉麦金尼市案”中表达担忧，该案涉及一名房主的财产在警方抓捕武装逃犯的行动中严重受损。
警方在对峙期间使用了催泪瓦斯、炸药和装甲车，导致房屋严重受损。尽管大法官们承认警察为保护公共安全采取了适当行动，但他们质疑宪法是否允许政府将此类损害的经济负担强加给个人房主而不予赔偿。
与此同时，2025年2月，索托马约尔与戈萨奇再次联手，这次是质疑第四修正案是否允许警察对并非在其在场情况下亲眼目睹的轻罪行为进行无逮捕令逮捕。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
该案涉及一名佛罗里达州男子，警方接到可疑活动报告后，在黎明前在居民区遇到该男子，随后以游荡和徘徊为由将其逮捕。随后的搜查发现了被盗邮件，导致联邦刑事指控。
福克斯新闻数字频道已联系最高法院办公室置评，但截至发稿未收到回复。
亚历克·舍梅尔是福克斯新闻数字频道的政治记者，原籍北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市，现居住在华盛顿特区-巴尔的摩都会区。
Trump-appointed justice joins Sotomayor in unlikely alliance to rip DOJ’s handling of illegal immigrant case
Unlikely SCOTUS allies questioned why an illegal immigrant was prosecuted twice after being ordered to remain in the US
October 15, 2026 12:56pm EDT / Fox News
By Alec Schemmel
Supreme Court justices will begin hearing oral arguments Monday on a wide range of cases this term involving gun rights, religious freedom, immigration detention and the limits of government power.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has joined forces with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor to question the federal government’s prosecution of an illegal immigrant, marking the latest unlikely alliance between the two justices.
Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump, and Sotomayor, appointed by former President Barack Obama, raised concerns about the government’s decision to prosecute a Mexican national twice for being found unlawfully in the United States — even after a federal court prohibited him from leaving the Eastern District of Oklahoma following his first conviction.
The unlikely pairing emerged Tuesday when the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Jesus Herrera-Salazar, who argued that his second prosecution violated the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy. Although the justices agreed the Court should not take up the case, Sotomayor issued a separate statement, joined by Gorsuch, warning of serious constitutional problems with the government’s actions.
GORSUCH SAYS IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDES ON SUPREME COURT COME DOWN TO ‘HOW YOU READ LAW,’ NOT POLITICS
Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch issued a joint statement this week questioning the federal government’s prosecution of an illegal immigrant, marking the latest in a series of unusual constitutional alliances between the two justices.(Getty Images)
“From the moment he was released from custody after serving his first term of imprisonment, Herrera-Salazar was presented with a Hobson’s choice,” Sotomayor wrote in the statement joined by Gorsuch. “In the Government’s eyes, whether Herrera-Salazar remained in the Eastern District of Oklahoma or left the United States, he would be breaking the law.”
The two justices questioned how the government could punish someone for remaining in the country after effectively prohibiting him from leaving, with the pair’s joint statement describing the situation as a “constitutional absurdity.”
Their agreement is particularly noteworthy given their differing judicial philosophies, but it is not the first time the pair has found common ground over constitutional protections against government action.
In November 2024, Sotomayor and Gorsuch jointly questioned whether homeowners should be compensated when police destroy private property while carrying out law enforcement operations. A few months later, they again joined forces to raise concerns about warrantless misdemeanor arrests. In both cases, as in the latest immigration dispute, the Court declined to hear the appeals, but the justices issued statements highlighting constitutional questions they believed deserved attention.
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue third-country deportations while the justices consider a legal challenge to the policy.(Getty Images)
The pair’s latest expression of joint public concern came after Herrera-Salazar, a Mexican national previously removed from the United States, was indicted in 2020 for being found in the country following deportation, a violation of federal immigration law.
‘UNPRECEDENTED’: JUDGES REVEAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES COORDINATION ON TRUMP IMMIGRATION CASES
He pleaded guilty and served a prison sentence before being placed on supervised release, during which he was expressly prohibited from leaving the Eastern District of Oklahoma without authorization under the terms of his release.
While still under those restrictions, Herrera-Salazar was stopped by police in Heavener, Oklahoma, and subsequently charged again under the same federal immigration statute prohibiting previously deported individuals from being found unlawfully in the United States. A jury subsequently convicted Herrera-Salazar, resulting in another prison sentence and additional supervised release.
The second prosecution prompted Herrera-Salazar to challenge his conviction on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing that the government had effectively punished him twice for the same continuous period of unlawful presence.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected that argument, concluding that the offense is completed when authorities discover a person’s unlawful presence and that a subsequent discovery can support a separate prosecution without requiring another illegal entry.
Federal immigration agents arrest a man in the parking lot of an H-Mart grocery store on October 31, 2025, in Niles, Illinois.(Photo by Jamie Kelter Davis/Getty Images)
Sotomayor and Gorsuch questioned that reasoning, pointing to Supreme Court precedent establishing that prosecutors cannot evade double-jeopardy protections simply by dividing one continuous crime into separate periods. Their concern was not whether Herrera-Salazar had violated immigration law in the first place, but whether the government could repeatedly prosecute him for remaining in the United States without evidence of a separate unlawful reentry.
The justices also highlighted that Herrera-Salazar’s supervised-release conditions restricted him from leaving Oklahoma, meaning the government was effectively preventing him from ending the conduct for which it later prosecuted him again. Sotomayor warned that, under the government’s interpretation, prosecutors theoretically could have brought separate charges against Herrera-Salazar for each day he remained imprisoned following his first conviction.
The statement was issued despite the justices’ agreement with the Court’s decision not to review the case. Sotomayor explained that Herrera-Salazar had already been removed from the United States and expressed hope that the unusual circumstances surrounding his prosecution would not arise again.
SUPREME COURT KICKS OFF NEW TERM WITH FRESH QUESTIONS OVER ITS LEGITIMACY AND ITS FUTURE
Rather than dissenting from the Court’s refusal to hear the appeal, Sotomayor and Gorsuch used what is formally known as a statement “respecting the denial of certiorari” to publicly identify constitutional concerns and urge lower courts to avoid similar problems in future cases.
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court on Oct. 7, 2022. Seated from left: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Standing behind from left: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.(USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect)
The unusual collaboration follows two earlier cases in which Sotomayor authored statements joined by Gorsuch after the Supreme Court declined review.
In November 2024, the pair raised concerns in Baker v. City of McKinney, a Texas case involving a homeowner whose property was extensively damaged during a police operation to apprehend an armed fugitive.
Police had used tear gas, explosives and an armored vehicle during the standoff, leaving the home severely damaged. Although the justices acknowledged that officers acted properly to protect public safety, they questioned whether the Constitution permits the government to impose the financial burden of such damage on an individual homeowner without compensation.
Meanwhile, in February 2025, Sotomayor and Gorsuch again joined forces, this time questioning whether the Fourth Amendment permitted police to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanors committed outside an officer’s presence that they did not personally witness.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
That case involved a Florida man arrested for loitering and prowling after police responding to a report of suspicious activity encountered him walking through a residential neighborhood before dawn. A subsequent search uncovered stolen mail, leading to a federal criminal charge.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Supreme Court chambers for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.
Alec Schemmel is a Politics Reporter for Fox News Digital who is originally from Charlotte, North Carolina but now resides in the Washington D.C.-Baltimore Metro Area.
发表回复