最高法院批准特朗普解除对委内瑞拉人的驱逐保护
【中美创新时报2025年5月19日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）周一，美国最高法院裁定特朗普政府暂时取消对近 35 万名委内瑞拉移民的保护，这些移民此前根据一项名为“临时保护身份”的计划，被允许留在美国，且不会面临被驱逐出境的风险。《纽约时报》记者艾比·范西克尔和亚当·利普塔克对此作了下述报道。
法院的简短命令未签署，也未说明理由，这在法官裁决紧急申请时很常见。命令中没有列出投票数，但法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊 (Ketanji Brown Jackson) 表示，她将拒绝政府的请求。
法官们宣布，他们将允许特朗普政府在案件上诉期间终止保护措施，这可能使政府得以推进驱逐出境程序。不过，法官们也澄清说，如果政府试图取消移民的工作许可或将其驱逐出境，他们将保留移民个人提起部分法律诉讼的权利。
法院收到了大量因特朗普总统发布行政命令而产生的申请，其中许多申请旨在暂停或限制初审法院阻止政府激进议程（特别是在移民问题上）的裁决。
这起案件始于2月份，当时美国国土安全部长克里斯蒂·诺姆终止了拜登政府授予委内瑞拉公民18个月的临时保护身份延期。受此影响的民众提起诉讼，称此举违反了行政程序，并受到种族偏见的影响。
今年3月，旧金山联邦地区法院法官爱德华·M·陈（Edward M. Chen）阻止了政府在案件审理期间取消这些保护措施的努力。他表示，原告已证明，他们很可能成功证明诺姆女士的行为“未经法律授权、任意妄为、反复无常，且出于违宪的敌意”。
陈法官发现，终止该倡议将对“数十万人造成无法弥补的伤害，他们的生活、家庭和生计将受到严重破坏，给美国造成数十亿美元的经济活动损失，并损害美国各地社区的公共健康和安全”。
美国第九巡回上诉法院驳回了政府要求暂停陈法官裁决的请求。
临时保护身份计划由美国国会制定并由老布什总统签署成为法律，允许来自遭受国家灾难、武装冲突或其他极端不稳定局势的国家的移民在美国合法生活和工作。
我努力让读者能够理解最高法院。 我力求将复杂的法律材料提炼并翻译成通俗易懂的文字，同时公正地呈现双方的论点，并时刻关注法院工作的政治背景和实际后果。
特朗普试图终止该计划下的保护措施，以兑现其驱逐数百万移民的竞选承诺。他的目标是在4月初终止对近35万人的保护，并在今年晚些时候终止对数十万人的保护。
在政府的紧急申请中，总检察长D·约翰·索尔（D. John Sauer）写道，制定该计划的法律明确禁止司法部门对行政部门的决定进行事后批评。该法律的一项规定称，“任何涉及外国的指定、终止或延长指定”的决定“不得进行司法审查”。
陈法官表示，该条款并不禁止他决定诺姆女士是否有权撤销保护。
索尔先生还批评了陈法官裁决的范围，这与政府在要求法官干预各种问题时反复提出的抱怨如出一辙。
索尔先生写道：“地方法院采取了全国范围的救济措施，取代了诺姆部长对国家利益的评估——地方法院没有资格介入这个领域。”
索尔先生要求大法官们迅速采取行动。“本法院尤其需要立即关注，”他写道，“因为旷日持久的诉讼实际上将阻止总统执行政府移民政策的关键组成部分。”
挑战者的律师回应称，制定该计划的法律严格限制了提前终止保护措施，并补充说，诺姆女士的行为并未获得法律授权。他们写道：“该法规没有任何地方赋予部长撤销或撤销延期的权力。”
他们还补充说，索尔的做法“将使联邦法院无力阻止哪怕是公然违法的机构行为——无论是限制 TPS 还是扩大它。”
最高法院已受理了其他几项涉及特朗普移民政策的紧急申请。其中一项申请是，特朗普政府请求法官允许其继续推进一项计划，撤销一项名为“人道主义假释”的计划中对来自四个陷入困境国家的移民的驱逐保护。
另一项裁决是，法院命令政府协助遣返被错误送往萨尔瓦多的基尔马·阿曼多·阿布雷戈·加西亚 (Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia)，他目前仍留在萨尔瓦多。
题图：最高法院大楼周围环绕着绿色的灌木和树木。图源…安娜·罗斯·莱登为《纽约时报》撰稿
Supreme Court Lets Trump Lift Deportation Protections for Venezuelans
A federal judge had blocked the administration’s plan to remove the temporary protected status of more than 300,000 immigrants.
The Supreme Court building surrounded by green bushes and trees.
Credit…Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times
By Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak
Reporting from Washington May 19, 2025
The Supreme Court on Monday let the Trump administration, for now, remove protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to remain in the United States without risk of deportation under a program known as Temporary Protected Status.
The court’s brief order was unsigned and gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices rule on emergency applications. No vote count was listed, although Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that she would deny the administration’s request.
The justices announced they would allow the Trump administration to end the protections pending appeal of the case, potentially allowing the administration to move ahead with deportations. The justices also clarified, however, that they would preserve the ability of individual immigrants to bring some legal challenges if the government tried to cancel their work permits or to remove them from the country.
The court has been inundated with applications arising from President Trump’s blitz of executive orders, many of them seeking to pause or limit trial court rulings blocking the administration’s aggressive agenda, notably in immigration.
This case started in February, when Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, terminated an 18-month extension of Temporary Protected Status that had been granted to Venezuelans by the Biden administration. People affected by the change sued, saying that the move violated administrative procedures and was influenced by racial bias.
In March, Judge Edward M. Chen of the Federal District Court in San Francisco blocked the administration’s efforts to remove the protections while the case moved forward. He said the plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed in showing that Ms. Noem’s actions had been “unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.”
Judge Chen found that terminating the initiative would inflict irreparable harm “on hundreds of thousands of persons whose lives, families and livelihoods will be severely disrupted, cost the United States billions in economic activity and injure public health and safety in communities throughout the United States.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the administration’s request that it pause Judge Chen’s ruling.
The Temporary Protected Status program, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, allows migrants from nations that have experienced national disasters, armed conflicts or other extraordinary instabilities to live and work legally in the United States.
“I try to make the Supreme Court accessible to readers. I strive to distill and translate complex legal materials into accessible prose, while presenting fairly the arguments of both sides and remaining alert to the political context and practical consequences of the court’s work.”
Mr. Trump has tried to end protections under the program as he seeks to make good on his campaign promise to deport millions of immigrants. His efforts aimed to terminate the protections for nearly 350,000 people in early April, and for hundreds of thousands more later this year.
In the administration’s emergency application, D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, wrote that the law creating the program specifically barred judicial second-guessing of the executive branch’s decisions. A provision of the law said that there was “no judicial review of any determination” concerning “the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”
Judge Chen said that the provision did not prohibit him from deciding whether Ms. Noem was authorized to vacate the protections.
Mr. Sauer also criticized the scope of Judge Chen’s ruling, echoing a complaint the administration has made to the justices repeatedly in its requests for their intervention on various issues.
“The district court entered nationwide relief supplanting Secretary Noem’s assessment of the national interest — an area into which a district court is uniquely unqualified to intrude,” Mr. Sauer wrote.
Mr. Sauer asked the justices to act promptly. “This court’s immediate attention is especially warranted,” he wrote, “because protracted litigation will effectively preclude the president from enforcing a critical component of the administration’s immigration policy.”
Lawyers for the challengers responded that the law creating the program strictly limited early terminations of protections, adding that Ms. Noem’s action was not authorized under the law. “Nowhere does the statute grant the secretary authority to vacate or rescind an extension,” they wrote.
They added that Mr. Sauer’s approach “would leave federal courts powerless to stop even blatantly lawless agency action — whether to restrict T.P.S. or expand it.”
The Supreme Court has fielded several other emergency applications involving Mr. Trump’s immigration policies. In one, the administration asked the justices to allow it to proceed with a plan to revoke deportation protections for migrants from four troubled countries under a program known as humanitarian parole.
In another, the court ordered the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who had wrongly been sent to El Salvador, where he remains.
