美国最高法院维持了反对者称为“串通”的一项和解协议的效力，该协议由唐纳德·特朗普总统的政府与得克萨斯州达成，旨在切断暂停部分驱逐程序的途径。
The US Supreme Court left in force what opponents call a “collusive” settlement struck by President Donald Trump’s administration and Texas to cut off an avenue for pausing some deportations.
大法官们周二驳回了三座城市和一家法律服务机构提出的紧急请求，后者主张该协议是一项阴谋，意在绕过正当程序取消一项联邦法规。法院未给出任何解释，也没有大法官公开表示异议。
The justices on Tuesday turned away an emergency request from three cities and a legal services provider, which argued the accord was a ploy to eliminate a federal regulation without going through the proper procedures. The court didn’t give any explanation, and no justices publicly dissented.
有争议的法规允许联邦移民法官在某些情况下暂停驱逐程序，例如当事人正单独寻求作为被忽视儿童或暴力犯罪幸存者的法律保护时。
The disputed regulation lets federal immigration judges pause deportation proceedings in some circumstances, as when a person is separately seeking legal protection as a neglected child or violent-crime survivor.
得克萨斯州于2006年起诉联邦政府，挑战该法规。司法部立即表示同意由法官撤销该规则，并禁止未来政府采用任何类似规则，除非国会先修改法律。美国地区法官里德·奥康纳当天即批准了该和解协议。
Texas sued the federal government to challenge the regulation in 2006. The Justice Department immediately said it agreed that a judge should set aside the rule and bar future administrations from adopting anything similar unless Congress first changed the law. US District Judge Reed O’Connor signed off on the settlement the same day.
该诉讼在得克萨斯州威奇托福尔斯提起，由共和党任命的奥康纳法官审理，他负责该地相当大比例的案件。由于奥康纳有支持得克萨斯州和特朗普政府的历史，该法庭已成为保守派的首选。
The suit was filed in Wichita Falls, Texas, where the Republican-appointed O’Connor handles a large percentage of cases. The forum has become a favorite for conservatives because of O’Connor’s history of siding with Texas and the Trump administration.
巴尔的摩、俄亥俄州哥伦布市和康涅狄格州纽黑文市三座城市，以及Centro Legal de la Raza（拉萨法律中心）联合请求最高法院恢复该规则的效力，以便他们在第五巡回上诉法院对和解协议提出挑战。
The cities — Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Connecticut — joined Centro Legal de la Raza in asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the rule while they challenged the settlement at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
“在一天之内，一项确立了移民法庭若干重要程序的重大法规被抹除，且未经实质性的司法审查、公众参与，也未遵守《行政程序法》（APA）的立法要求，”他们辩称。他们表示，该案涉及“恶劣的串通”。拜登政府于2024年采纳了该法规，将支持者称之为移民法官长期以来的惯例正式化，即在情形允许时以行政方式结案驱逐程序。得克萨斯州和司法部称，该法规无法与联邦移民法相协调。
“A significant regulation that established certain important procedures in immigration courts was erased over the course of a single day, without meaningful judicial review, public participation, or adherence to the APA’s rulemaking requirements,” they argued. They said the case involved “egregious collusion.”The Biden administration adopted the regulation in 2024, formalizing what proponents say was a longstanding practice among immigration judges of administratively closing deportation cases when circumstances warrant. Texas and the Justice Department say the regulation can’t be squared with federal immigration law.
奥康纳表示，挑战者缺乏介入该案的法律资格，因为他们未直接受到该和解的充分影响。在最高法院，得克萨斯州和司法部称这一结论是正确的。
O’Connor said the challengers lacked legal standing to get involved in the case because they weren’t directly enough affected by the settlement. At the Supreme Court, Texas and the Justice Department said that was the right conclusion.
美国律政司司长D·约翰·绍尔辩称：“挑战者的请求‘试图不当利用一起关于介入的明确争议，对一项同意判决的实质发起深远攻击。’‘本法院不应允许申请人把车赶在马前。’”该案为“巴尔的摩诉得克萨斯州案”，案号26a500。
The challengers’ request “attempts to improperly leverage a clear-cut dispute over intervention into a far-reaching attack on the merits of a consent judgment,” US Solicitor D. John Sauer argued. “This court should not allow applicants to put the cart before the horse.”The case is Baltimore v. Texas, 26a500.