2026年4月24日 / 美国东部时间下午2:11 / 哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）新闻
上诉法院叫停特朗普在美墨边境的移民庇护收紧政策
作者
梅利莎·奎因
梅利莎·奎因 资深政治记者
梅利莎·奎因是CBSNews.com的资深记者，负责报道美国政治，重点关注最高法院与联邦法院。
查看完整简介
梅利莎·奎因、雅各布·罗森
雅各布·罗森 司法部记者
杰克·罗森是负责报道美国司法部的记者。他此前曾作为竞选数字记者报道特朗普总统2024年竞选活动，还曾担任《玛格丽特·布伦南面对全国》节目的助理制片人。
查看完整简介
雅各布·罗森
更新于：2026年4月24日 / 美国东部时间下午2:24 / 哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）新闻
华盛顿讯 —— 联邦上诉法院周五叫停了特朗普总统关于暂停对非法穿越南部边境的移民提供庇护及其他法律保护的指令。
美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院由三名法官组成的分歧合议庭裁定，联邦移民法不允许特朗普政府实施新的快速递解程序将移民递解出境，也不允许剥夺他们申请庇护的权利。
J·米歇尔·蔡尔兹法官为多数方两名法官撰写了判决意见，她的同事科妮莉亚·皮拉德法官联署了该意见。贾斯汀·沃克法官部分同意多数意见，但对特朗普总统实际上关闭美墨边境庇护系统的指令的合法性持不同意见。
“我们认定，《移民与国籍法》的文本、结构与历史都明确表明，国会在授予总统通过公告暂停入境的权力时，并未打算赋予行政部门其所主张的广泛递解权限，”拜登任命的蔡尔兹法官在多数意见中写道。
她补充道：“因此，该公告与指导意见在规避《移民与国籍法》递解程序、无视联邦法律赋予个人申请并接受庇护审查或免于递解保护的权利的范围内，均属非法。”
沃克法官是特朗普第一任期任命的，他同意同僚们的结论，即行政部门无权剥夺移民获得保护以免被遣返至他们可能遭受迫害或酷刑的国家的程序渠道。但他表示，总统有权合法拒绝所有庇护申请。
美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）的律师卡米洛·蒙特托亚-加尔韦斯参与了该政策的诉讼，他在一份声明中表示，这一裁决“可能拯救数千名逃离严重危险的生命——这些人在特朗普政府可怕的庇护禁令下甚至连听证会都无法获得”。
特朗普政府可以请求哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院全体法官复审该判决，或是向最高法院提起上诉。
该案是特朗普移民议程面临法律挑战的众多案例之一。在2024年总统竞选期间，特朗普曾承诺若再次当选将实施大规模遣返，并在其第二任期内推行旨在实现这一目标的政策。
特朗普就职首日便指示其政府暂停数百万因本国可能存在酷刑或迫害而寻求赴美移民的庇护程序。
特朗普在行政令中称，美国正遭遇“入侵”，因此他将“暂停非法移民的实际入境”，直到他认定“入侵已结束”。
紧随该指令之后，国土安全部发布指导意见，告知南部边境的移民当局，在入境口岸之间穿越边境的个人“不允许申请庇护”。该部门还宣布，受特朗普行政令约束的人员可通过“直接遣返”或“快速递解”这两种新程序被立即递解，且不允许其申请庇护。
根据该指导意见，移民官员被告知不得就移民是否有可信理由担心遭受迫害或酷刑提出具体问题。
哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院审理的这起案件始于2025年2月，当时一群移民权利组织提起诉讼，挑战特朗普政府阻断美墨边境移民庇护通道的举措。
他们辩称，总统通过新的快速递解程序越权行事，其公告及国土安全部的指导意见违反了《移民与国籍法》。
今年7月，美国地区法官伦道夫·莫斯将所有受特朗普指令约束、目前身处或即将身处美国的移民认证为集体诉讼原告。他还支持原告方与寻求庇护者，认定《移民与国籍法》和宪法均未赋予特朗普在公告中主张的“广泛权限”，且“诉诸必要性无法填补这一权限空白”。
司法部向哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院提起上诉，该法院在上诉审理期间同意缩小下级法院判决的适用范围。不过，该合议庭确实限制了总统关闭南部边境庇护系统的行动。
在周五的判决中，哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院合议庭维持了地区法院支持原告的判决。
“《移民与国籍法》不允许总统根据自行制定的快速递解程序递解原告。该法也不允许行政部门暂停原告申请庇护的权利、拒绝原告依据《移民与国籍法》获得免于递解的保护，或是缩减审理原告《禁止酷刑公约》诉求的强制程序，”蔡尔兹写道。
特朗普政府曾辩称，移民法授权总统限制受其指令约束的移民援引申请庇护的权利，但多数法官并不认同这一说法。
“恰恰相反，禁止身处美国境内的外国个人申请庇护，且若他们符合法定资格标准，也禁止对其申请进行审查，这与该法律条文相悖，”蔡尔兹说道。
她表示，包括法院与行政部门在内的诸多来源均表明，国会制定庇护法时，除少数例外情况，旨在赋予所有身处美国的外国国民申请庇护并接受申请审查的权利。
“若政府希望修改这一精心构建且复杂的体系，必须将相关论点提交给唯一有权修订《移民与国籍法》的政府部门：国会，”蔡尔兹写道。
卡米洛·蒙特托亚-加尔韦斯对本文亦有贡献。
By
Melissa Quinn,
Melissa Quinn Senior Reporter, Politics
Melissa Quinn is a senior reporter for CBSNews.com, where she covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.
Read Full Bio
Melissa Quinn,
Jacob Rosen
Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter
Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
Read Full Bio
Jacob Rosen
Updated on: April 24, 2026 / 2:24 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s directive suspending access to asylum and other legal protections for migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border.
A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that federal immigration law does not allow the president to deport migrants under new summary removal proceedings implemented by the Trump administration or to suspend their right to apply for asylum.
Judge J. Michelle Childs authored the decision for the two-judge majority. She was joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Judge Justin Walker concurred in part but dissented from the court’s conclusion on the legality of Mr. Trump’s directive to effectively close the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border.
“We conclude that the [Immigration and Nationality Act’s] text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” Childs, a Biden appointee, wrote for the majority.
“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections,” she added.
Walker, appointed by Mr. Trump in his first term, agreed with his colleagues’ finding that the executive branch cannot strip migrants of access to procedures that protect them from being removed to countries where they would likely be persecuted or tortured. But he said it is within the president’s lawful discretion to deny all asylum applications.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU, which challenged the policy, said in a statement that the decision “will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration’s horrific asylum ban.”
The Trump administration can ask the full D.C. Circuit to review the decision or appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case is one of many aspects of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda that has faced legal challenges. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised to execute mass deportations if elected and has implemented policies in his second term in pursuit of that aim.
On Mr. Trump’s first day back in office, he directed his administration to suspend the asylum process for millions of people seeking to come to the U.S. due to potential torture or persecution in their native countries.
In his executive order, Mr. Trump said that there was an “invasion” into the U.S. and as a result, he was “suspending the physical entry” of undocumented migrants into the country until he determined “that the invasion has concluded.”
On the heels of that directive, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance informing immigration authorities at the southern border that individuals who cross between ports of entry are “not permitted to apply for asylum.” The department also declared that people subject to Mr. Trump’s executive order could be summarily removed under one of two new processes, “direct repatriation” or “expedited removal,” without being allowed to request asylum.
Under the guidance, asylum officers were told not to ask specific questions about whether a migrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.
The case before the D.C. Circuit arose in February 2025, when a group of immigrant rights’ groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to block the asylum pathway for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
They argued that the president had exceeded his authority through the new summary removal procedures and that his proclamation and the Homeland Security Department’s guidance violated the Immigration Nationality Act.
In July, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss certified as a class all migrants subject to Mr. Trump’s directive who are or will be in the U.S. He also sided with the plaintiffs and asylum seekers, finding that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act or Constitution give Mr. Trump the “sweeping authority asserted” in the proclamation and that an “appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”
The Justice Department appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which agreed to narrow portions of the lower court’s decision while proceedings before the appeals court continued. That panel did, however, limit the president’s efforts to close the asylum system at the southern border.
In its decision Friday, the D.C. Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
“The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making. Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs’ access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Convention Against Torture claims,” Childs wrote.
The Trump administration had argued that immigration law authorizes the president to restrict migrants subject to his directive from invoking the right to apply for asylum, but the judges in the majority disagreed.
“To the contrary, barring foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States from applying for asylum and, if they make the statutory showing that they are eligible, from being considered to receive it cannot be squared with the statute,” Childs said.
She said that numerous sources, including from the courts and the executive branch, point to the conclusion that Congress enacted the asylum statute, with narrow exceptions, to grant all foreign nationals in the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and have their applications adjudicated.
“If the Government wishes to modify this carefully structured and intricate system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the INA: Congress,” Childs wrote.
Camilo Montoya-Galvez contributed to this report.