2026-06-25T20:15:06.881Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/25/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-hands-trump-massive-wins-on-immigration-agenda
美国最高法院保守派多数票周四为唐纳德·特朗普总统的移民政策带来两项重大支持裁决，为政府有效驱逐超100万人离开美国、并从源头上阻止更多人入境铺平了道路。
这两项均由保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托撰写的判决，遭到了最高法院三名自由派大法官的激烈反对，将对美国边境的庇护申请以及被称为“临时保护身份”的项目产生广泛影响。临时保护身份是一种人道主义救济形式，允许受益人合法在美国生活和工作。
法庭上的紧张气氛在大法官之间蔓延，自由派大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔当庭宣读了反对意见。随后阿利托公开反驳，让习惯了大法官们恪守礼仪的法庭观察员大为震惊。
随着这个6票对3票的最高法院下周公布更多判决，这种紧张局势可能会加剧。
以下是特朗普政府限制移民努力周四取得重大胜利的关键要点。
最高法院在临时保护身份问题上支持特朗普，实质上裁定法院根本无权审理该议题。
这项人道主义项目允许已居住在美国的民众在本国发生动乱时继续留在美国。获得该身份的受益人经过严格审查，可以临时合法在美国生活和工作。设立临时保护身份的法律规定，政府做出的身份认定决定不受法院审查，但一群海地和叙利亚国民辩称，该条款并未禁止法院审查政府做出决定的程序。
阿利托驳斥了这一理由。
“该文本含义明确，其字面意义非常广泛，”阿利托写道，随后补充道，“部长关于临时保护身份的认定决定不受司法审查。”
约35万海地人以及约6000名叙利亚人将直接受到最高法院这项裁决的影响。
政府无疑也会辩称，阿利托的意见禁止法院审查其他涉及临时保护身份的案件。特朗普政府曾试图终止17个已获得该项目资格国家中的13个国家的临时保护身份，其中许多相关裁决目前仍在法院审理中。
这13个目标国家分别是：海地、叙利亚、委内瑞拉、洪都拉斯、阿富汗、尼泊尔、喀麦隆、缅甸、埃塞俄比亚、索马里、南苏丹、也门和尼加拉瓜。
大法官们就特朗普本人描述海地民众的言论展开了激烈交锋。
海地临时保护身份受益人提出的一项主张是，特朗普在终止该项目时带有种族敌意。这一主张基于他的言论，包括他在竞选期间的虚假断言，称俄亥俄州的海地人在吃人们的宠物。如果海地人能够证明特朗普的言论表明政府决策受种族主义驱动，那么他们就可以根据平等保护条款赢得诉讼。
但阿利托和最高法院其他保守派同样驳回了这一论点。
“一个没有种族偏见的人也可以对某些拥有临时保护身份的国家的生活条件做出极其负面的描述，”阿利托写道，“临时保护身份的认定标准保证了许多——即便不是大多数——被认定的国家都具备这样的特征。海地也不例外。它是一个非常贫穷的国家，当地的生活条件无疑十分艰难。”
值得注意的是，阿利托并未说明特朗普的具体言论。自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根很快在其反对意见中指出了这一疏漏。
她将特朗普的言论描述为“如此令人反感且带有种族倾向，以至于多数派都不愿将其公之于众”。
卡根随后自行复述了这些言论，包括特朗普所说的俄亥俄州的海地人“在吃狗……他们在吃猫。他们在吃——吃人们的宠物”。
卡根写道，这些言论“无论从种族内涵还是引申义来看，都直白地表明，种族因素影响了总统驱逐海地人离开美国的决心”。
https://www.cnn.com/
在阿利托撰写的另一项6票对3票的判决中，最高法院认可了被称为“限流排队”的有争议庇护政策。
该政策允许边境联邦探员在寻求庇护者踏上美国领土之前将其遣返，阻碍他们接受官员正式审查——这是漫长流程的第一步，该流程最终可能会让他们获得庇护资格。
尽管特朗普在第一任期内大力支持这项政策，但在前总统乔·拜登任内被废除。特朗普第二任期的官员尚未表明他们是否打算重新实施该政策，但他们希望保留这一选项。
在今年早些时候的案件口头辩论中，助理副检察长维韦克·苏里告诉大法官们，政府“希望能够在边境状况允许的情况下恢复限流排队政策”。
政府选择继续在法庭上为限流排队政策辩护，反映出一个现实：其他移民举措可能会遇到法律障碍，促使政府最终转而采取这项政策。
重返白宫后，特朗普实施了一系列旨在遏制南部边境合法移民的政策，包括关闭所有移民入境口岸并暂停庇护审理程序。但这些举措也遭到了法律挑战，法院近期对其中部分政策作出了不利于政府的裁决。
据德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校施特劳斯中心的数据，限流排队政策实施期间，阻碍了数万名移民推进庇护申请流程。
移民权利组织谴责这项裁决，一名代表海地国民的律师警告称，该裁决将“直接导致数千名无辜民众死于暴力、本可避免的死亡”。
这项裁决还可能对经济产生重大影响。
据关注移民政策的倡导组织FWD.us的分析，许多已在美国生活多年、建立事业、购置房产并养育子女的海地人，为美国经济贡献了约59亿美元。他们还缴纳了16亿美元的联邦工资税、州税和地方税。
FWD.us发现，2025年初有近19万海地临时保护身份持有者处于就业状态。他们大多从事零售、酒店、医疗保健和其他行业——担任厨师、服务员、仓储员、包装员和护理助理。
IHRMC酒店及度假村首席执行官扬·高塔姆表示，他可能不得不解雇佛罗里达州数十家酒店中约20%的员工。
“我们尊重司法系统，”他告诉CNN，“我们会让所有人离职，我们会遭受损失，他们也会。”
养老院、辅助生活设施和家庭护理机构预计将不得不替换大量员工，其中相当一部分是海地临时保护身份持有者。这可能会给许多美国老年人的护理工作带来压力和中断。
“每天为老年人提供支持的员工和护理人员——在我们某些社区占整个劳动力8%或更多的合法雇员——现在可能会在一夜之间失去工作，”非营利和使命驱动型老年服务全国协会LeadingAge首席执行官凯蒂·史密斯·斯隆在一份声明中表示，“目前没有现成的劳动力能够替代这些长期建立的关系——有些关系已经维系了数年甚至数十年，而这些关系对高质量护理至关重要。”
她补充道，护理机构可能不得不限制入院人数、关闭病房或拒绝家庭护理请求，直到职位空缺得到填补。
索托马约尔尖锐的反对意见与阿利托令人震惊的回应
大法官索尼娅·索托马约尔在庇护案件中撰写了尖锐的反对意见，称限流排队政策只会助长非法越境行为——但这仅仅是开始。
“会有更多人死亡，”索托马约尔写道。
“更多人会尝试非法越境，有些人会成功，有些人则不会。更多人会被迫沿着美墨边境在危险环境中行走，试图找到一个会为他们办理入境检查的口岸，”她补充道，“更多人会因为自身无法改变或本不应改变的特质，如种族、宗教、国籍或政治观点，而被迫折返并遭受暴力。”
https://www.cnn.com/
这位最高法院资深自由派大法官援引了美国历史上一段不光彩的事件：1939年，美国拒绝了载有近1000名逃离欧洲犹太难民的“圣路易斯号”客轮。该船随后返回欧洲，许多乘客在大屠杀中丧生。
“如果‘圣路易斯号’上的难民今天走到我们南部边境的入境口岸，多数派的解释将允许移民官员通过身体阻止他们踏上美国领土，甚至不考虑他们的庇护申请，”索托马约尔写道。
索托马约尔当庭宣读了她的反对意见，这是一个象征性举动，每个任期内只有当大法官希望强调其对多数派意见的反感时才会出现几次。
随后，在法庭上发生了一场极不寻常且紧张的交锋，阿利托回击了索托马约尔，暗示他对她的举动感到意外。这一举动打破了通常高度程序化的意见发布流程。
阿利托似乎对索托马约尔的强硬言辞感到意外，并指出有两届政府都推行过这项政策。诚然，“限流排队”政策最初由前总统巴拉克·奥巴马实施，但在特朗普第一任期内得到了正式确立。
在索托马约尔当庭发言后，阿利托回应称这项庇护政策“有序且人道”，随后转向了下一份意见书。
这场闹剧可能还会继续。
随着最高法院继续审理一些最具政治争议的案件，大法官们日益按照意识形态路线分裂。本周早些时候，最高法院创下一项里程碑：今年公布的6票对3票判决数量超过了去年全年。
周四在移民案件以及一项涉及夏威夷限制性枪支法律的判决，进一步推高了这一数字。
截至目前，最高法院今年共公布了10项以6票对3票意识形态分歧作出的判决。这还不包括所谓的紧急议程上的裁决，其中一些裁决产生了重大影响。
本任期内迄今最重要的6票对3票判决之一，是最高法院4月份的一项裁决，削弱了《选举权法案》在选区划分纠纷中的效力。这项裁决以及随后的多项裁决，帮助共和党迅速在路易斯安那州和阿拉巴马州等南方州重新划分国会选区，为共和党在今年的中期选举中占据优势提供了帮助。
随着未来几天陆续发布剩余意见书，更多引发最高法院激烈分歧的裁决可能即将出炉。最高法院表示将于周一公布更多意见书，预计下周至少还有一天会发布判决。
等待出炉的案件包括：特朗普是否可以解雇联邦独立机构（如联邦贸易委员会）官员的相关裁决，以及州政府禁止跨性别女孩参加女子体育队的合法性问题。
Takeaways: Supreme Court hands Trump massive wins on immigration agenda
2026-06-25T20:15:06.881Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/25/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-hands-trump-massive-wins-on-immigration-agenda
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority delivered President Donald Trump a pair of significant affirmations of his immigration policy Thursday, paving the way for the administration to effectively remove more than 1 million people from the US and keep many others from entering in the first place.
The decisions, both of which were written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito over scathing dissents from the court’s three liberals, will have a sweeping impact on asylum claims at the US border and on a program known as Temporary Protected Status, a form of humanitarian relief that allows beneficiaries to live and work in the country legally.
There was also tension in the courtroom between the justices, as liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the symbolic step of reading her dissent from the bench. Alito then retorted publicly, stunning court observers accustomed to decorum from the justices.
The tension will likely build as the 6-3 court announces more decisions next week.
Here are the key takeaways from Thursday’s major victories for the Trump administration’s efforts to limit immigration.
The court sided with Trump on Temporary Protected Status by essentially ruling that courts have no business deciding the issue in the first place.
The humanitarian program allows people who are already residing in the US to remain in the country at times of upheaval in their home countries. Under the designation, heavily vetted beneficiaries are allowed to temporarily live and work in the US legally. The law setting up TPS says that an administration’s “determination” to apply the designation cannot be reviewed by courts, but a group of Haitian and Syrian nationals said that language didn’t bar the court from looking at the process the administration used to decide.
Alito balked at that reasoning.
“This text is clear, and its plain meaning is very broad,” Alito wrote, later adding, “The secretary’s TPS designation decisions are not subject to judicial review.”
Roughly 350,000 Haitians, along with roughly 6,000 Syrians, will be directly affected by the court’s decision.
The administration is also certain to argue Alito’s opinion bars courts from reviewing other cases involving TPS. The Trump administration has attempted to end TPS for 13 out of 17 countries that had been designated for the program, and many of those decisions have been tied up in courts.
The 13 countries targeted are: Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Honduras, Afghanistan, Nepal, Cameroon, Myanmar (Burma), Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and Nicaragua.
The justices engaged in a sharp back-and-forth over Trump’s own words in describing the Haitian people.
One of the claims the Haitian TPS beneficiaries made was that Trump had acted with racial animus in shutting down the program. That was based on his comments, including his false assertion during the campaign that Haitians in Ohio were eating peoples’ pets. If the Haitians could have demonstrated that Trump’s remarks pointed to a government decision driven by racism, then they could have won their claims under the equal protection clause.
But Alito and the court’s other conservatives dismissed that argument as well.
“A person without racial bias can provide a harshly unfavorable description of living conditions in some of the countries with TPS designations,” Alito wrote. “The criteria for TPS designations guarantee that many, if not most, designated countries have such characteristics. Haiti is no exception. It is a very poor country, and living conditions there are unquestionably difficult.”
Notably, Alito did not say what Trump’s statements were. It’s an omission liberal Justice Elena Kagan was quick to point out in her dissent.
She described Trump’s comments as “so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print.”
Kagan then reproduced the statements herself, including Trump’s remarks that Haitians in Ohio were “eating the dogs … . They’re eating the cats. They’re eating – they’re eating the pets of the people.”
Those statements, Kagan wrote, “fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the president’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.”
https://www.cnn.com/
In another 6-3 opinion authored by Alito, the court blessed the controversial asylum policy known as “metering.”
It enables federal agents stationed at the border to turn back asylum seekers before they ever step foot on US soil, frustrating their ability to be formally inspected by officials — the first step in a winding process that could eventually result in them being granted asylum.
Though Trump championed the policy during his first term, it was rescinded under former President Joe Biden and officials in the second Trump administration have not said whether they actually intend to reimplement it, but they wanted the option.
During oral arguments in the case earlier this year, Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri told the justices that the administration “would like to be able to reinstate metering if and when border conditions justify.”
The administration’s decision to continue defending the metering policy in court reflected the reality that potential legal roadblocks to other immigration initiatives may trigger a decision to eventually turn back to it.
After returning to office, Trump has imposed a series of policies aimed at curbing legal immigration at the southern border, including by closing all ports of entry to migrants and suspending asylum adjudications. But those moves were also met with legal challenges, and courts have recently ruled against some of them.
When the metering policy was in place, it frustrated the ability of tens of thousands of migrants to move forward in seeking asylum, according to the Strauss Center at the University of Texas at Austin.
Immigrant rights groups decried the decision, and an attorney for the Haitian nationals warned that the decision would “directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths.”
The ruling may also have a significant impact on the economy.
The Haitians, many of whom have lived in the US for years, building careers, buying homes and raising children, contribute an estimated $5.9 billion to the US economy, according to an analysis by FWD.us, a policy and advocacy organization focused on immigration that has supported TPS for Haitians. They also pay $1.6 billion in federal, payroll, state and local taxes.
Nearly 190,000 Haitian TPS holders were employed in early 2025, FWD.us found. Many work in retail, hospitality, healthcare and other industries – serving as cooks and servers, stockers and packers and nursing assistants.
Jan Gautam, CEO of IHRMC Hotels & Resorts, said he will likely have to lay off roughly 20% of his staff at dozens of hotels in Florida.
“We respect the judicial system,” he told CNN. “We’ll let everyone go, and we’ll suffer and they’ll suffer.”
Nursing homes, assisted living facilities and homecare agencies expect they’ll have to replace many employees, a sizeable share of whom are Haitian TPS holders. That could cause stress and disruptions to care for many elderly Americans.
“Staff and caregivers who support older adults every day – legal employees who in some of our communities represent 8% or more of the entire workforce – can now lose their jobs overnight,” Katie Smith Sloan, CEO of LeadingAge, the national association of nonprofit and mission-driven providers of aging services, said in a statement. “There is no workforce waiting in the wings capable of replacing the long-standing relationships, in some cases built over years and even decades, that are so vital to quality care.”
Providers may have to limit nursing home admissions, close units or turn down requests for home care until the vacancies are filled, she added.
Sotomayor’s biting dissent and Alito’s stunning response
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a biting dissent in the asylum case that argued the metering policy only incentivizes unlawful border crossings – but that was only the beginning.
“More people will die,” Sotomayor wrote.
“More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not. More people will be forced to walk along the US-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them,” she added. “More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.”
https://www.cnn.com/
The court’s senior liberal justice seized on an ugly episode in the nation’s history in which the US turned away the MS St. Louis, a ship ferrying nearly 1,000 Jewish refugees fleeing Europe in 1939. The ship later returned to Europe, where many of the passengers perished in the Holocaust.
“If the refugees on the MS St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto US soil,” Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, a symbolic move that happens only a few times each term when a justice wants to emphasize their distaste of the majority opinion.
Then, in a highly unusual and tense exchange on the bench, Alito fired back at Sotomayor, suggesting that he had been blindsided by her actions. The move broke with the usually highly scripted nature of opinion releases.
Alito seemed to be taken aback by Sotomayor’s strong language, and noted that two administrations had pursued the policy. It is true that the “metering” of asylum seekers began under former President Barack Obama but it was formalized during Trump’s first term.
Responding to Sotomayor after her bench statement, Alito described the asylum policy as “orderly and humane,” before turning to his next opinion.
The drama is likely to continue.
As the court continues to resolve some of its most politically charged cases, the justices are increasingly being divided along ideological lines. Earlier this week, the court hit a milestone by handing down more 6-3 decisions this year than it did last year.
The decisions Thursday in the immigration cases, as well as one concerning a restrictive Hawaii gun law, drove that number up even more.
In all, the court has handed down 10 opinions divided 6-3 along ideological lines. That also doesn’t include actions on the so-called emergency docket, some of which have had meaningful impacts.
Among the most significant 6-3 decisions so far this term was the court’s April ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act’s power over redistricting disputes. The decision, and several that followed from it, helped Republicans quickly redraw congressional district in Southern states like Louisiana and Alabama to give the GOP an advantage in this year’s midterm elections.
More rulings sharply dividing the court are likely to come as races to issue its remaining opinions in coming days. The court said it would hand down more opinions Monday and is expected to release decisions at least one other day next week.
Waiting in the wings are rulings in cases questioning whether Trump may fire officials at independent federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the legality of state bans on transgender girls competing on girls’ sports teams.