最高法院周二批准了特朗普政府的请求，得以实施将移民驱逐至其非原籍国的政策。
Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s bid to enforce its policy of deporting immigrants to countries they aren’t from.
除了在三名民主党任命大法官的反对下批准紧急救济外，大法官们还表示将在新的法院任期内审理该问题，这意味着预计将在7月前对该事做出最终裁决。
In addition to granting emergency relief over dissent from the court’s three Democratic appointees, the justices also said they would take up review of the issue during the new court term, meaning a full decision on the matter is now expected by July.
在此项命令下达之际，大法官们将于周一重返法庭，开启新的任期。他们在10月至次年4月期间定期举行案件听证会，并以滚动方式做出裁决，最终裁决通常在6月下旬出台。周二的命令称，他们将在法院12月的庭审期间听取本案的口头辩论；他们并表示希望各方做好准备，讨论正当程序等几个法律问题。
The order comes as the justices are set to return to the bench Monday to start their new term. They hold regularly scheduled hearings in cases from October through April, deciding them on a rolling basis with the final rulings typically coming in late June. Tuesday’s order said they will hear argument in this case during the court’s December session; they said they want the parties to be ready to discuss several legal issues, including due process.
尽管法院明年的最终裁决结果尚待观察，但周二对政府有利的临时裁决表明，在进入听证会阶段时，政府胜算较大。大法官们在即将举行的听证会上的提问和评论，应能让我们一窥最终裁决的端倪。
Although it remains to be seen what the court decides in its final ruling next year, Tuesday’s provisional order in the administration’s favor shows that it is likely the government’s case to lose heading into the hearing. The justices’ questions and comments at that forthcoming hearing should shed light on what the final decision will look like.
在周二获得批准的救济申请中，政府向大法官们表示，其需要驱逐危险罪犯的权力；而移民律师则表示，政府的这项政策本身既危险又违法，危及了那些未犯任何罪行的长期美国居民的生命。
In its application for relief that was granted on Tuesday, the administration told the justices it needs the authority to remove dangerous criminals, while lawyers for immigrants said the government policy itself is dangerous and illegal, risking the lives of longtime U.S. residents who haven’t committed any crimes.
美国副总检察长约翰·绍尔指出，大法官们此前在该问题的诉讼中已两次支持政府，并向最高法院表示有必要“梅开三度”（即进行第三次审理）。
Noting that the justices had twice backed the administration in previous litigation on the issue, Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court that a third helping was needed.
在申请撤销地方法官针对政府的禁令时，索尔（Sauer）指出：在该禁令被联邦上诉法院解除之前，美国政府已经依据该政策驱逐了数千人。他称，该禁令的突然恢复“给正在进行的驱逐行动带来了严重的后勤问题（包括航班的取消），导致了额外的费用支出、潜在的外交纠纷，以及无法将危险罪犯驱逐出境的困境”。
In his application to halt a district judge’s order against the government, Sauer said the administration had been deporting people under the policy for more than a year before a federal appeals court lifted a block on that order. He said the “unexpected springing-back” of the order “created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations — including the cancellation of flights — and led to added expense, potential diplomatic issues, and the inability to remove dangerous criminals.”
反对联邦政府申请的移民律师们表示，政府无视了这一政策所带来的严重后果——数千名长期居住在美国的移民（其中许多人没有犯罪记录）被驱逐到第三国，而这些移民在第三国可能会面临迫害或酷刑。他们指出，这种驱逐行为会导致移民被外国政府无限期关押、被反复驱逐（即“链式驱逐”）、失踪，以及在拘留期间遭受虐待（如殴打、性侵犯、不人道的关押条件等）。所谓“链式驱逐”，是指移民首先被送往某个第三国，而该第三国又会将他们转送到美国原本不允许其直接遣送他们的国家。
Opposing the federal government’s application, lawyers for immigrants said the administration ignored the “significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime U.S. residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there.”They said third-country removals lead to “indefinite detention by foreign governments, chain refoulement, disappearance, and abuse in detention, including beatings, sexual assault, inhumane conditions, and being held incommunicado.”Chain refoulement is when someone is sent to a third country that then sends them to a country to which the U.S. was not allowed to send them directly.
移民律师们引用了美国官员的话，称实施第三国驱逐政策的目的是“恐吓民众”。在向法官解释这一政策时，索尔在申请书中表示：当移民拥有法院禁令、禁止其被驱逐到某些国家（因为担心在那里会遭受迫害或酷刑）时，政府可以迅速将他们送往另一个承诺不会迫害或虐待他们的国家；或者，如果移民事先被告知将被驱逐，并有机会表达对目标国家的担忧（例如可能遭受的迫害或酷刑），政府也可以将他们送往那些无法提供此类保障的国家。
The immigrants’ lawyers quoted a U.S. official as saying that the point of the third-country removal policy is “to scare people.”Explaining the policy to the justices, Sauer said in his application that, when an immigrant has a court order preventing their removal to a certain country or countries for fear of being tortured or persecuted there, the government can quickly send them to another country that pledges not to persecute or torture ; or they can be sent to a country that does not give such assurances if the immigrant is first given notice of their removal and a chance to raise any fears of potential torture or persecution in that country.
反对该申请时，移民律师表示，该政策违反联邦法律和宪法正当程序保护。他们称，该政策未给面临被遣送至第三国的人员提供足够的通知告知其将被送往何处，也未给予他们有意义的机会主张为何不应被送往该地。
Opposing the application, lawyers for immigrants said the policy violates federal law and constitutional due process protections. They said it doesn’t give people facing third-country removals sufficient notice of where they’d be sent or a meaningful chance to argue why they shouldn’t be sent there.
订阅《Deadline：法律通讯》，获取本周重大法律新闻的专家分析，包括最高法院最新动态及特朗普政府相关法律案件的进展。
to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
帖子：最高法院支持特朗普在第三国遣返问题上的立场，民主党法官持异议 MS NOW
The post Supreme Court backs Trump on third-country deportations over Democratic dissent MS NOW