最高法院在一份未署名的意见书中为白宫限制拜登时期的政策扫清了道路。
The Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, cleared the way for the White House to restrict the Biden-era policy.
最高法院周二为特朗普政府限制一项拜登时期的政策扫清了道路，该政策允许移民法官运用自由裁量权，每年结案终止数千起驱逐案件。
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to restrict a Biden-era policy that allows immigration judges to use their discretion to close thousands of deportation cases each year.
移民权益倡导者表示，这一做法使法官得以减轻不堪重负的移民法院的负担，并让一些移民——例如犯罪受害者或受忽视的未成年人——免于经历遣返程序，前提是他们有充分理由留在美国。
Immigration advocates say the practice allows judges to ease loads on strained immigration courts and spare some migrants — such as crime victims or neglected juveniles — from going through removal proceedings if they have a good case for remaining in the United States.
批评者将这一被称为“行政结案”的程序称为一种变相的幕后大赦。
Critics call the procedure, known as “administrative closure,” a form of backdoor amnesty.
在特朗普第一届政府试图禁止法官使用行政结案之后，拜登政府于2024年将该做法写入法规。据政府统计数据，这种做法以某种形式已存在数十年，自1990年以来约有36万名移民获准行政结案。这些案件是结案，而非撤案，因此现在可能被重新开启。
After the first Trump administration tried to bar judges from using administrative closure, the Biden administration codified the practice in 2024. It has been going on in some form for decades, with roughly 360,000 migrants granted administrative closure since 1990, according to government statistics. The cases are closed, but not dismissed, so they could now be reopened.
特朗普去年重返执政后，其政府宣布将不再为拜登时期的政策辩护。得克萨斯州随后在该州的一家联邦法院对该规定提出质疑。
When Trump returned to office last year, the administration announced it would no longer defend the Biden-era policy. Texas then challenged the rule in a federal court in that state.
司法部告诉法官，其支持作出有利于得克萨斯州的判决。法官签发了永久禁令，阻止允许行政结案的政策。
The Department of Justice told the judge it supported a judgment favoring Texas. The judge entered a permanent injunction blocking the policy allowing administrative closure.
三个移民人口众多的城市——巴尔的摩、俄亥俄州哥伦布市和康涅狄格州纽黑文市——以及一个移民权利组织寻求介入此案，为拜登时期的规定辩护并推翻该判决。法院拒绝了这些请求，于是它们向最高法院提出上诉。
Three cities with large migrant populations — Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Connecticut — and an immigrant rights’ group sought to intervene in the case to defend the Biden rule and overturn the judgment. Courts denied those moves, giving way to their appeal to the Supreme Court.
大法官们没有解释为何驳回这些城市和移民权利组织的上诉。该意见书未署名。
The justices did not explain why they were rejecting the appeal by the cities and immigrant rights’ group. The opinion was unsigned.