2026-04-29T16:41:40.815Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨与德文·科尔
更新于1小时3分钟前
更新时间：2026年4月29日，美国东部时间下午3:16
发布时间：2026年4月29日，美国东部时间中午12:41
2026年4月29日，移民权利活动家及示威者在美国最高法院外举行集会，一名男子手持标语牌站在人群中。
美国最高法院周三暗示，将支持唐纳德·特朗普总统终止针对数百万来自战乱和自然灾害国家外籍人士的临时驱逐保护令的举措。
这是特朗普第二任期内提交至最高法院的最重要移民上诉案件之一，由六名保守派大法官组成的多数派暗示，他们认为当政府启动或终止临时保护身份（TPS）时，联邦法院甚至可能无权审查相关法律质疑。
相关直播报道
2026年4月13日的美国最高法院外景。
最高法院限制《投票权法案》适用范围，并就临时保护身份问题听取辩论
如果这一观点成立，其影响将远超挑战特朗普终止两国TPS决定的海地和叙利亚公民，还可能有效阻止针对其他政府决策的诉讼。
目前有超过100万移民通过该项目获准在美国生活和工作。
以下是口头辩论的五大要点：
保守派大法官暗示法院无管辖权
包括首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在内的多名保守派大法官聚焦于联邦法院无权审查TPS决定的合法性这一观点。原因是国会在TPS法案中加入了一项条款，明确规定政府的“裁定”不可被审查。
“如果我们按照过往判例解读该条款，我实在不明白你方如何能胜诉，”保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托说道。
代表叙利亚TPS受益人出庭的律师阿希兰·阿鲁兰纳坦辩称，虽然最终裁定不可审查，但官员做出裁定的过程仍可被挑战。
但另一名保守派大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特似乎对此表示怀疑。
“既然所有人真正关心的都是实质内容，那国会为何要允许对程序方面进行审查？”她问道。
最高法院对程序问题的关注虽然具有技术性，但也颇具指示意义。由于大法官们如此聚焦于法院是否有权审理此案，他们花在讨论特朗普政府在决策过程中是否违反法律或宪法的时间要少得多。
相关报道
2026年3月17日，海地援助中心执行主任维莱·多桑维尔和俄亥俄州斯普林菲尔德大格雷斯教堂副牧师布兰登·彼得森在华盛顿特区美国最高法院外聆听祈祷。
特朗普的反移民言论会影响最高法院判决吗？ 阅读时长7分钟
特朗普的言论有影响——但仅对自由派大法官而言
特朗普撤销海地TPS的决定背后，始终萦绕着他此前对这个岛国及其侨民的攻击性言论。
这些言论以及前国土安全部部长克里斯蒂·诺伊姆（去年正式撤销海地TPS的官员）的类似言论，是一名联邦法官裁定该政策变更至少部分出于种族敌意的重要依据。这一点至关重要，因为如果终止TPS的决定基于种族，则违反了平等保护条款。
自由派大法官周三重点关注了这一点，他们质疑政府去年的决定是否存在违宪歧视。
“我们有一位总统曾多次表示，海地是一个‘肮脏’、‘污秽’和‘令人作呕’的‘粪坑国家’，”最高法院资深自由派大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔在向副检察长D·约翰·绍尔提问时说道，“他还抱怨美国接收来自这类国家的人，而不是挪威、瑞典或丹麦的人。”
“他将与TPS相关的非法移民称为‘在毒害美国的血液’，”索托马约尔在谈及特朗普时说道，并补充道：“我看不出这句言论如何不能证明‘歧视性目的可能在该决定中发挥了作用’。”
绍尔回应称，特朗普和诺伊姆的言论并未明确提及种族。
大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊也向绍尔施压，要求其解释为何下级法院审理此案时没有考虑特朗普的言论，而最高法院却应忽略这些言论。
“关于海地和食用宠物的言论，以及针对这些移民的称呼——尽管他们在美国合法居留——这些都是相当近期的事情，”她说道，指的是特朗普在2024年大选期间称俄亥俄州的海地移民吃狗肉的言论。“你对这类言论有何说法？”
绍尔表示，这些言论“出自不同背景，时间相隔久远”，因此对本案“不具有启发意义”。
然而，最高法院的保守派大法官们基本回避了总统的言论。
卡瓦诺聚焦当下叙利亚局势
大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺是特朗普任命的保守派大法官之一，他是少数就政府的实际决策提出问题的大法官之一。
但他的问题表明，这位在备受关注的案件中往往持有关键一票的大法官，同意政府的决定。
奥巴马政府于2012年在前叙利亚总统巴沙尔·阿萨德镇压抗议者后，为部分叙利亚公民授予了TPS。随着当地内战爆发，该身份多次得到延长。但特朗普政府指出，阿萨德政权已于2024年倒台，国土安全部于去年11月宣布将终止TPS身份。
“但现在已经不是阿萨德政权了，”卡瓦诺对代表叙利亚移民的律师说道，“在53年的彻底压迫和残酷统治之后，这个政权已经倒台。”
卡瓦诺援引政府诉状中的一句话，向阿鲁兰纳坦追问有多少叙利亚人自行返回了该国。
“所以你是否同意，阿萨德政权的更迭是该国乃至更广泛中东地区历史上的重大变革？”他问道。
“我不认为事情如此简单，”阿鲁兰纳坦回应道。
但阿鲁兰纳坦表示，他无需就如今的叙利亚是否安全展开辩论，因为他的核心观点是政府未进行充分审查。
卡根：“真的假的？”
本案的核心问题之一是，国土安全部在终止两国TPS身份之前，是否就当地局势充分咨询了国务院。联邦法律要求进行此类咨询，但TPS受益人代表的律师称，特朗普政府并未重视这一程序。
在两起案件中，一名国土安全部律师曾就TPS身份问题向国务院官员发送电子邮件，但收到的回复仅表明国务院对终止海地和叙利亚的TPS没有外交政策担忧。
下级法院认定，此次咨询远未达到联邦法律要求国土安全部应做到的程度。但绍尔向大法官们表示，此类咨询具有高度的遵从性，只要进行了沟通，其他政府机构在终止程序中向国土安全部提供了何种信息并不重要。
这引发了自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根一系列越来越难以置信的假设性问题。
她问道，如果国土安全部部长就叙利亚局势向国务院寻求评估，但从未收到回复，会如何？如果国务院没有回复实地局势信息，反而谈论最近的棒球比赛，又会如何？
“如果她向国务院寻求意见，就算完成了咨询，”绍尔平淡地回应道，并补充称这符合“咨询”一词的“字面含义”。
“真的假的？”卡根反驳道，“‘咨询’一词的字面意思难道是，你就某个话题与某人交换意见吗？”
绍尔坚持己见。他表示，即使国务院完全不予回应，国土安全部部长也已完成了法律要求的所有程序。
“如果她向国务院寻求意见，”他说，“她就已经完成了咨询。”
其他国家的TPS身份岌岌可危
最高法院预计将于6月底前作出裁决，其影响可能波及美国境内超过100万移民，尽管本案仅涉及约35万海地人和6000叙利亚人。
前总统乔·拜登卸任时，美国已为来自17个国家的公民提供或延长了TPS保护。自特朗普去年再次就职以来，其政府已终止或试图终止所有13个接受审查的国家的TPS身份。
该政府还采取行动终止南苏丹、叙利亚和埃塞俄比亚等国的TPS身份。其中许多决定仍在联邦法院接受审查，这些案件将在很大程度上取决于最高法院多数派的结论。
最高法院去年曾在紧急程序 docket 中审查了其中一起案件。在该案中，大法官两次允许特朗普剥夺约30万委内瑞拉人的临时驱逐保护令。
最高法院未解释其裁决理由。
杰克逊在其中一项裁决中写下异议书，指责政府试图“尽可能快地颠覆尽可能多的人的生活”。
CNN记者普里西拉·阿尔瓦雷斯和塔米·卢比对本文亦有贡献。
Takeaways: Supreme Court signals it will side with Trump on Haitian and Syrian migrants
2026-04-29T16:41:40.815Z / CNN
By John Fritze and Devan Cole
Updated 1 hr 3 min ago
Updated Apr 29, 2026, 3:16 PM ET
PUBLISHED Apr 29, 2026, 12:41 PM ET
A person stands with a placard as immigrants’ rights activists and demonstrators attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2026.
Nathan Howard/Reuters
The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it will back President Donald Trump’s push to end temporary deportation protections for potentially millions of foreign nationals who hail from countries enduring war and natural disasters.
In one of the most significant immigration appeals to reach the high court during Trump’s second term, the six-justice conservative majority signaled that it believes federal courts might not even have the power to review legal challenges when an administration turns Temporary Protected Status designations on and off.
Related live story The US Supreme Court is seen on April 13, 2026. Mariam Zuhaib/AP Supreme Court limits reach of the Voting Rights Act and hears arguments over temporary protected status
If that is true, it would have profound implications beyond the Haitian and Syrian nationals who challenged Trump’s decision to end TPS for their countries and could effectively bar suits against other decisions.
More than 1 million immigrants are permitted to live and work in the United States under the program.
Here are five takeaways from oral arguments:
Conservatives signal courts have no role
Several of the conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, focused on the idea that federal courts have no power to review the legality of TPS decisions. That’s because Congress included a provision in the TPS law that makes clear that an administration’s “determinations” are not reviewable.
“I really don’t understand how you can prevail,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito said, if the court interprets that provision as it has in past decisions.
Ahilan Arulanantham, the attorney arguing on behalf of Syrian TPS beneficiaries, argued that while a final decision isn’t reviewable, the process that officials used to get there can be challenged
But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, seemed to doubt that.
“Why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect when really what everybody cares about is the substance?” she asked.
The court’s focus on procedure, while technical, is also telling. Because the justices were so dialed in on whether the court could even review the case, they spent far less time talking about whether the Trump administration had violated the law or the Constitution in how it made its decisions.
Related article Viles Dorsainvil, Executive Director of the Haitian Support Center, and Associate Pastor Brandon Peterson of Greater Grace Temple in Springfield, Ohio, listen to a prayer outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2026. Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images Will Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric matter at the Supreme Court? 7 min read
Trump’s comments matter – but only to the liberals
Looming large over Trump’s revocation of TPS for Haiti are a history of offensive comments he has made about the island country and its people who have found a home in the US.
Those comments and similar ones from former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the official who formally revoked TPS for Haitians last year, factored heavily into a federal judge’s decision to rule that the policy change was motivated at least in part by racial animus. That is important because if the decision to end TPS was made based on race, it would violate the equal protection clause.
The liberal justices zeroed in on that point Wednesday as they questioned whether the administration’s decision last year was unconstitutionally discriminatory.
“We have a president say at one point that Haiti is a ‘filthy,’ ‘dirty’ and ‘disgusting’ ‘shithole country,’” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, said at one point to Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “And where he complained that the United States takes people from such countries instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark.”
“He declared illegal immigrants, which he associated with TPS, as ‘poisoning the blood’ of America,” Sotomayor said of Trump, adding: “I don’t see how that one statement” doesn’t show a “discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”
Sauer responded that the comments from Trump and Noem don’t mention race specifically.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pressed Sauer to explain how the court was simply supposed to look past Trump’s comments when the lower court that considerd the TPS move did not.
“The statements about Haiti and eating pets and the names that were called with respect to these immigrants – even though they are lawfully in the United States – those are pretty recent,” she said, referring to Trump’s claims during the 2024 election that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating dogs. “What do you say about those kinds of things?”
Sauer said the remarks were “made in different contexts that are remote in time” and are therefore “un-illuminating” for this case.
The court’s conservatives, however, largely avoided the president’s comments.
Kavanaugh focuses on present day Syria
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing appointed by Trump, was one of the only justices who had questions about the administration’s actual decisions.
But those questions indicated Kavanaugh, who is often a key vote in high-profile cases, agreed with the administration’s decision.
The Obama administration granted TPS for certain Syrians in 2012 following the crackdown on protesters by former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. That designation was repeatedly extended amid a civil war that erupted there. But Trump officials have noted that the Assad regime fell in 2024, and the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would end the TPS designation last November.
“It’s not the Assad regime anymore though,” Kavanaugh told an attorney representing the Syrian immigrants. “After 53 years of complete oppression and brutal treatment, it’s gone.”
Picking up on a line from the administration’s brief, Kavanaugh pressed Arulanantham on how many Syrians had returned to the country on their own.
“So do you agree the Assad regime change is a significant change in the history of that country and the Middle East more broadly?” he asked.
“I don’t think it’s as simple as that,” Arulanantham responded.
But, Arulanantham said, he didn’t need to get into a debate about whether Syria today is safe or not because, he said, the point is the administration did not conduct an adequate review.
Kagan: ‘I mean, really?’
One of the central questions in the cases is whether the Department of Homeland Security sufficiently consulted with the State Department about conditions on the ground in the two countries before it moved ahead with terminating the TPS designations. That consultation is required by federal law, but the attorneys representing the TPS recipients said the Trump administration gave that process short shrift.
In both cases, a DHS lawyer employee emailed a State Department official about the designations, but the communications they received in return simply stated that State has no foreign policy concerns over a termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria.
Lower courts found that consultation to be far short of what federal law requires DHS to do. But Sauer told the justices that such consultation is highly deferential, and that it didn’t matter what other government agencies told DHS as part of the termination process so long as some communication occurred.
That prompted a series of increasingly incredulous hypothetical questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan.
What if the DHS secretary asked the State Department for an assessment of the conditions in Syria but never received a response, she asked. What if, instead of responding with information about conditions on the ground, the State Department instead responded with thoughts on a recent baseball game?
“If she sought input from State, she has consulted,” Sauer responded flatly, adding that would full under the “plain meaning” of the word “consulting.”
“I mean, really?” Kagan shot back. “The plain meaning of the word ‘consultation’ seems to be, like, you consult with somebody on a topic.”
Sauer held firm. Even if the State Department was completely unresponsive, he said, the Homeland Security secretary had done all that was required under the law.
“If she sought input from State,” he said, “she has consulted.”
TPS for other countries at stake
The court’s decision, which is expected before the end of June, could affect more than 1 million immigrants in the United States, even though the case itself is focused on some 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
When former President Joe Biden left office, the US had provided — or extended — TPS protections for people from 17 countries.Since Trump returned to office last year, his administration has ended — or attempted to end — TPS designations for all 13 countries that have come up for revie.
The administration has also moved to end TPS designations for South Sudan, Syria and Ethiopia, among others. Many of those decisions are still being reviewed by federal courts and those cases will heavily influenced by what the Supreme Court majority concludes.
The Supreme Court reviewed one of those cases last year on its emergency docket. In that case, the justices twice allowed Trump to strip temporary deportation protections from some 300,000 Venezuelans.
The court did not explain its reasoning.
Jackson wrote an dissent in one of those decisions accusing the administration of attempting to “disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible.”
CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez and Tami Luhby contributed to this report.