2026-06-26T10:02:25.256Z / https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/immigration-supreme-court-accedes-trumps-restrictive-agenda-2026-06-26/
华盛顿6月26日路透电 — 自唐纳德·特朗普去年重返总统职位，承诺大力打击移民并推行大规模驱逐行动以来，由保守派占多数的美国最高法院在绝大多数情况下都为其铺平了道路。
在一桩又一桩案件中，拥有6比3保守派多数席位的最高法院几乎毫无例外地批准了这位共和党总统针对合法和非法移民的政策，仅有极少数例外，而其三名自由派大法官则对他的多数举措提出了反对。
本周的最新例证便是，最高法院在三起均以意识形态划线作出判决的案件中为特朗普及其政府赢得了三场胜利，这些裁决将使驱逐移民或拒绝其入境变得更加容易，其中包括那些在美国拥有合法身份的人群。
“形同橡皮图章”
“特朗普政府已将移民系统变成了一台驱逐机器，”纽约哥伦比亚大学法学院移民权利诊所主任埃洛拉·穆克吉说道。
“在大多数案件中，最高法院都成了特朗普大规模驱逐议程的橡皮图章，”穆克吉补充道。
最高法院周四以6比3的投票结果，允许政府剥夺数十万海地和叙利亚移民的临时保护身份。根据美国法律，这一人道主义称号允许因战争或灾难而无法返回祖国的移民在美国生活和工作。
法律专家表示，这一裁决的实际影响对即将失去身份的移民而言极为严峻，他们将面临两种选择：留在美国并面临拘留风险，或是返回美国国务院因普遍存在的暴力、犯罪、恐怖主义和绑架行为而警告民众不要前往的国家。
“人们绝不应该被遣返至这样的环境中，”无国界医生美国分部首席执行官蒂拉娜·哈桑周四在谈及海地时表示。
加州大学洛杉矶分校移民法专家、叙利亚临时保护身份纠纷原告律师阿希兰·阿鲁兰纳坦表示：“过去几年里，最高法院在重要案件中始终站在移民社区权利的对立面，这起案件也符合这一模式。”
“这一裁决为政府以及反移民运动中的极右翼势力送上了一场重要胜利，而他们多年来一直无法在国会达成这一目标，”阿鲁兰纳坦补充道。
最高法院周四还以6比3的投票结果支持了政府的一项权力：当官员认为美墨边境入境压力过大时，可以通过物理方式阻止寻求庇护者入境，将其拒之门外。特朗普政府表示，在民主党前任总统乔·拜登取消该政策后，他们可能会寻求恢复这项被称为“排队限流”的政策。
周二，最高法院再次以6比3的分歧裁决，简化了驱逐合法永久居民（即绿卡持有者）的程序，裁定边境官员在外国旅行后拒绝此类个人重新入境美国之前，无需达到“明确且有说服力的证据”这一高标准来证明其犯下了罪行。
“法治与常识”
“这三项裁决都是法治和常识的胜利，”美国国土安全部总法律顾问詹姆斯·珀西瓦尔说道，他补充称临时保护身份“原本就应该是临时性的”。
“多亏了这些裁决，我们现在拥有了更多重要工具，继续加强边境安全，”珀西瓦尔补充道。
自特朗普2025年1月重返白宫以来，最高法院在很大程度上顺应了他的要求，在下级法院阻挠其推行强化驱逐行动的政策时，允许其付诸实施，同时相关法律挑战仍在进行中。
这些裁决均以紧急形式通过最高法院所谓的“影子日程”作出，大法官们可以在常规程序之外作出具有重大影响的决定，无需进行大量案情陈述或口头辩论。
例如，最高法院已允许特朗普将移民遣送至他们毫无关联的国家，开展可基于种族或语言针对性 targeting 个人的激进移民突袭行动，并终止包括临时保护身份以及针对数十万移民的假释在内的人道主义保护措施。
圣母大学法学院移民诊所主任阿什利·桑切斯表示，尽管移民法律并未发生实质性变化，但特朗普政府正选择以尽可能限制合法和非法移民的方式来执行这些法律。
最高法院目前的意识形态组成自2020年10月起便未发生变化，当时特朗普任命保守派大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特接替已故自由派大法官露丝·巴德·金斯伯格。
桑切斯表示，这一保守派超级多数席位在移民裁决中起到了关键作用。
“这个更保守的团体似乎更愿意站在总统这边，”桑切斯补充道。
桑切斯提到了特朗普第一任期内2020年6月的一项裁决，当时最高法院阻止了他终止一项保护数十万童年非法入境美国的移民（通常被称为“追梦人”）免于驱逐的计划。当时最高法院的保守派多数席位为5比4，但保守派首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨与法院的自由派成员共同作出了该裁决。
“很难想象本届法院会作出同样的裁决，”桑切斯说道。
最高法院在某些情况下也曾与特朗普产生分歧。例如，在某些案件中，大法官们裁定政府必须公平对待移民，这符合美国宪法所保障的正当程序原则。
去年，大法官们两次限制了政府实施特朗普援引1798年《敌对外侨法》的企图，该法案历史上仅在战争时期使用，旨在迅速驱逐被指控为阿拉瓜武装团伙成员的委内瑞拉移民。
出生公民权
最高法院当前的任期已接近尾声，但尚未就一起涉及特朗普限制性移民议程中或许最大胆举措的重大案件作出裁决。根据大法官们在4月案件辩论中提出的问题，最高法院可能会作出不利于特朗普的裁决，判定其旨在每年剥夺数十万在美国本土出生婴儿出生公民权的行政令违宪。
特朗普的行政令指示美国政府机构，若父母双方均非美国公民或合法永久居民（即绿卡持有者），则不承认其在美国出生的子女的公民身份。
下级法院认定特朗普的行政令与美国宪法第十四修正案相悖，长期以来该修正案的解释一直是将公民身份授予几乎所有在美国本土出生的人，仅存在少数例外情况，包括外国外交官或占领敌军成员的子女。
争议所涉及的第十四修正案条款被称为“公民条款”，其内容为：“所有在合众国出生或归化合众国并受其管辖的人，都是合众国的和他们居住州的公民。”
裁决最快可能于周一公布。
安德鲁·钟报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑
On immigration, Supreme Court accedes to Trump’s restrictive agenda
2026-06-26T10:02:25.256Z / https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/immigration-supreme-court-accedes-trumps-restrictive-agenda-2026-06-26/
WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) – Since Donald Trump returned to the presidency last year promising to aggressively crack down on immigration and pursue a campaign of mass deportation, the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court has, for the most part, smoothed the way.
In case after case, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has green-lighted the Republican president’s policies targeting both legal and illegal immigration with few exceptions, while its three liberal justices have objected to most of his actions.
The latest examples came this week, when the court gave Trump and his administration three victories — all in cases decided along ideological lines — that make it easier to deport people, or refuse them entry, including those who have legal status in the United States.
‘A RUBBER STAMP’
“The Trump administration has turned the immigration system into a deportation machine,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School in New York.
“In most cases, the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp for Trump’s mass deportation agenda,” Mukherjee added.
The court in a 6-3 decision on Thursday let the administration strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of their Temporary Protected Status. This humanitarian designation under U.S. law lets migrants from nations stricken by war or catastrophe live and work in the United States while it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries.
Legal experts said the practical effect is grim for immigrants now losing their status as they face a choice of staying and risking detention, or returning to countries that the U.S. State Department warns against any travel to due to widespread violence, crime, terrorism and kidnapping.
“These are not conditions to which people should be returned,” Tirana Hassan, CEO of the group Doctors Without Borders USA, said on Thursday, referring to Haiti.
Ahilan Arulanantham, an immigration law expert at UCLA and lawyer for the Syrian plaintiffs in the TPS dispute, said, “The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the rights of immigrant communities in important cases in the last several years, and this case fits that pattern.”
“The decision hands to the administration, and to the far right wing of the anti-immigrant movement, an important victory that they have been unable to obtain through Congress for a number of years,” Arulanantham added.
The court also on Thursday ruled 6-3 to back the government’s authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials deem U.S.-Mexico border crossings overburdened, by physically blocking them from entering the United States. Trump’s administration has said it may seek to revive the policy, known as “metering,” after it was dropped by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden.
On Tuesday, again in a 6-3 split, the court made it easier to remove lawful permanent residents — also known as green-card holders — ruling that border agents do not need to meet the high standard of “clear and convincing evidence” that such an individual has committed a crime before refusing to allow them back into the country after a trip abroad.
‘THE RULE OF LAW’
“These three rulings are all victories for the rule of law and common sense,” said Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival, adding that Temporary Protected Status “was always supposed to be temporary.”
“Thanks to these decisions, we now have several more important tools to continue securing our borders,” Percival added.
Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, the court has largely acceded to his demands to implement policies bolstering his drive to step up deportations when they have been impeded by lower courts, while legal challenges to them play out.
These decisions have been issued on an emergency basis on the Supreme Court’s so-called shadow docket in which the justices can make highly consequential decisions outside their regular process, without extensive briefing or oral arguments.
For instance, the court has let Trump deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, carry out aggressive immigration raids that can target individuals based on their race or language, and to end humanitarian protections including TPS and another form of protection called parole for hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
Ashley Sanchez, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Notre Dame’s law school, said that while immigration laws have not substantially changed, Trump’s administration is choosing to apply them in a way to limit both legal and illegal immigration as much as possible.
The court has had its current ideological makeup since October 2020, when Trump appointed conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The existence of this conservative supermajority has been pivotal in immigration rulings, Sanchez said.
“This more conservative group appears much more willing to side with the president,” Sanchez added.
Sanchez pointed to the court’s June 2020 decision, during Trump’s first term as president, to block his bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants — often called “Dreamers” — who entered the United States illegally as children.
The court had a 5-4 conservative majority at the time, but conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court’s liberal members in the decision.
“It’s hard to imagine this current court coming to that same decision,” Sanchez said.
The court has pushed back against Trump in some instances. In certain cases, for example, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution’s promise of due process.
Last year, the justices twice placed limits on the administration’s attempt to implement Trump’s invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
The court is almost at the end of its current term, but has not yet ruled in a major case involving perhaps the most audacious piece of Trump’s restrictive immigration agenda. Based on questions asked by the justices during arguments in the case in April, the court may hand Trump a defeat by ruling against his executive order that would deny birthright citizenship to hundreds of thousands of babies born each year on U.S. soil.
Trump’s order instructed U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder.
The lower court found Trump’s order to be inconsistent with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which long has been interpreted as granting citizenship to virtually anyone born on U.S. soil, with some narrow exceptions including the children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.
The 14th Amendment’s provision at issue, called the Citizenship Clause, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
A decision could come as soon as Monday.
Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham