2026-10-13T14:11:04.910Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/13/politics/supreme-court-doge-asylum-plea-nigeria-terrorist-chef
美国最高法院周二同意受理唐纳德·特朗普政府提出的两项上诉，其中一起案件涉及政府效率部（DOGE）——这个曾由埃隆·马斯克执掌的精简政府机构，另一起则涉及一名因曾为恐怖组织成员做饭而被拒绝庇护的尼日利亚男子。
这两起案件反映了特朗普去年重新执政后的施政方向：一是加强对移民的打击，二是大幅削减政府开支。
DOGE案涉及去年以罕见速度精简政府机构的实体的权力与透明度这一根本性问题。左翼监督组织“公民责任与道德操守华盛顿分会”根据联邦透明度法律提起诉讼，要求获取相关文件，联邦下级法院已下令DOGE提供信息，以确定该法律是否适用于该机构。
庇护案的核心是一名曾为实施恐怖袭击的分离主义组织担任厨师的尼日利亚国民，特朗普政府称这一纠纷每年可能影响数千起移民案件。
特朗普政府就下级法院要求DOGE披露文件的裁决提起上诉，辩称分权原则应阻止联邦法院提出此类“范围广泛且具有侵扰性的证据开示”要求。司法部告诉最高法院，这些裁决将“反常地让原告在任何法院认定《信息自由法》适用之前，就能获得其在该法案下文件申请中寻求的大部分信息”。
尽管DOGE已淡出公众视野，但它对联邦政府产生了重大影响——兑现了特朗普限制联邦政府规模的承诺。本案的核心争议在于，DOGE是在自行行使权力（这可能使其受到公开记录申请的约束），还是仅仅作为总统的咨询机构行事——若是后者，它很可能会免于此类申请。
特朗普政府经常声称自己是历史上最透明的政府，却在本案中积极抗辩，将DOGE描述为白宫内部的“总统咨询机构”，其任务是“提供建议”而非作出决策。
去年，最高法院在三名自由派大法官的反对下，在本案的早期阶段作出了有利于DOGE的裁决，要求下级法院缩小证据开示中要求提供的材料范围。“公民责任与道德操守华盛顿分会”撤回了对部分文件的申请，但下级法院允许其他申请继续有效。如今，最高法院将裁定这些精简后的申请是否合法。
下级法院曾下令DOGE提供其负责人发给员工的所有“指令”、任何获取机密信息的计划，以及DOGE负责人艾米·格里森的证词。
枪炮与黄油
伊祖丘库·奥祖伦巴于2023年进入美国，后来申请庇护。他称自己被迫在尼日利亚“未知枪手”组织的营地做饭，直到在一次外出采购食品和汽油时逃脱。一名移民法官根据联邦法律驳回了他的庇护申请，该法律禁止为恐怖组织提供“物质支持”的移民获得庇护。
最高法院越来越多地将移民问题作为新开庭期的核心议题。该院目前正在审理特朗普将移民驱逐至与其毫无关联国家的举措，以及其政府的强制拘留政策。
“为恐怖组织成员提供餐食，与为其车辆提供汽油一样，都是实质性的支持形式，”美国副检察长D.约翰·佐尔——特朗普政府的首席上诉律师——在向最高法院提交的上诉中说道。
奥祖伦巴已于2025年被驱逐回尼日利亚。
特朗普政府告诉大法官们，奥祖伦巴案的具体细节无关紧要。该法律，他们辩称，“并不区分枪炮与黄油”。
但位于里士满的美国第四巡回上诉法院关注法律中的“实质性”一词，认定奥祖伦巴为分离主义组织做饭六个月的行为并未达到这一标准。奥祖伦巴的律师表示，他们的当事人在应聘时并未意识到自己卷入了什么，之后被迫违背意愿继续工作。
“按照政府的解读，与恐怖组织的任何互动都可能被定性为物质支持，”他们的律师说道。他们举例称，向所有忏悔者听告解的神父会被视为提供精神咨询，为与恐怖组织有关联的患者治疗的医生也可能受到惩罚。
“在这种测试标准下，‘实质性’一词将失去所有意义——任何形式的支持，无论多么间接、被迫或附带，都将足够构成要件，”他们告诉大法官们。
两起案件的判决预计将于明年夏季前作出。
Supreme Court takes up DOGE documents fight and an asylum plea from a chef for terrorists
2026-10-13T14:11:04.910Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/13/politics/supreme-court-doge-asylum-plea-nigeria-terrorist-chef
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to take up a pair of appeals from President Donald Trump’s administration, including a case about the Department of Government Efficiency, the government-cutting entity once run by Elon Musk, and a dispute about a Nigerian man who was denied asylum because he once cooked meals for members of a terrorist organization.
The two cases are a reflection of Trump’s return to power last year, both his crackdown on immigration and his moves to slash government spending.
The DOGE case raises fundamental questions about the power and transparency of an entity that slashed agencies with unusual speed last year. A left-leaning watchdog, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, sued to gain access to those documents under a federal transparency law, and lower federal courts have ordered DOGE to produce information to help decide whether the law applies.
The asylum case centers on a Nigerian national who served as a cook for a separatist group carrying out terrorist attacks, a dispute that the Trump administration says could affect thousands of immigration cases annually.
The Trump administration appealed lower court orders requiring DOGE to disclose records, arguing that separation of powers concerns should bar such “wide-ranging and intrusive discovery” demands from federal courts. Those orders, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court, would “perversely give respondent much of the information that it sought in its” request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act “before any court has held that FOIA applies.”
While DOGE has slipped from public view, it had a significant impact on the federal government – carrying out Trump’s promise of limiting the federal government. Central to the case is whether DOGE was exercising power on its own, which might make it subject to open records requests, or whether it was merely acting as an advisory body to the president, in which case it would likely be shielded from those requests.
The Trump administration, which the president frequently claims is the most transparent in history, has aggressively fought the case, describing DOGE as a “presidential advisory body” within the White House that is tasked “with providing recommendations” rather than making decisions.
Over the dissent of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court last year came down on the side of DOGE in an earlier stage of the case, requiring lower courts to narrow the scope of the material ordered in discovery. CREW withdrew its request for certain documents but lower courts allowed other requests to stand. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if the more pared down requests were proper.
The lower court ordered DOGE to provide all “directives” by its administrator to its employees, to disclose any plans to access classified information and a deposition by the head of DOGE, Amy Gleason.
Guns and butter
Izuchukwu Ozurumba, who entered the United States in 2023 and later claimed asylum, says he was forced to cook at a camp for the Unknown Gunmen in Nigeria until he escaped during a run for groceries and gas. An immigration judge denied his asylum claim under a federal law that bars sanctuary for any migrant who provided “material support” to a terrorist organization.
The Supreme Court has increasingly made immigration a central theme of its new term. It is already reviewing Trump’s push to deport migrants to countries they have no connection with and his administration’s mandatory detention policies.
“Providing meals to a terrorist organization’s members is no less a material form of support than providing gasoline for its vehicles,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the Trump administration’s top appellate attorney, told the Supreme Court in its appeal.
Ozurumba was deported to Nigeria in 2025.
The Trump administration told the justices the particulars of Ozurumba’s case don’t matter. The law, it argued, “does not distinguish between guns and butter.”
But the Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals focused on the word “material” in the law, finding that Ozurumba’s six-month stint cooking meals for the separatist group didn’t meet that threshold. Ozurumba’s lawyers said their client didn’t realize what he was getting into when he sought the job and then was forced to continue to perform it against his will.
“Under the government’s reading, seemingly any interaction with a terrorist organization could be characterized as material support,” his attorneys said. A priest who hears confession to all comers, they argue, would be viewed as providing spiritual counsel. A doctor who treats a patient affiliated with a terrorist organization, they argue, could also be punished.
“Under such a test, ‘material’ loses all meaning – every conceivable form of support, no matter how attenuated, compelled, or incidental, would suffice,” they told the justices.
Decisions in both cases are expected by next summer.