这最高法院周四，奥巴马赢得了总统大选唐纳德·特朗普s移民政策，肯定政府有能力加快清除寻求庇护者其申请被拒绝。
该案件涉及一名斯里兰卡男子，他在2017年寻求庇护时在美国和墨西哥边境被捕。过了一会儿移居一名官员称，如果被迫回家，他未能表现出“对迫害的可信恐惧”,这名男子向联邦法院申请人身保护令，这是一种让法官对某人的拘留进行复审的能力。
在7-2决定法院称，根据联邦法律和宪法，斯里兰卡寻求庇护者维贾古玛·图雷西加姆没有资格对他的驱逐提出质疑。
“人身保护令传统上是确保从非法拘留中释放的一种手段，但被告援引令状来达到一个完全不同的目的，即获得对其庇护申请的额外行政审查，并最终获得在该国居留的授权，”法官塞缪尔·阿利托(Samuel Alito)在多数意见中写道，法院的其他四名保守派也加入了该意见。
“被告试图非法进入该国，在距离边境仅25码处被捕。因此，除了法律赋予的程序性权利，他没有其他权利，”阿利托补充道。
裁决是一个为特朗普加油，谁曾试图打击一个大量庇护案件在法律体系中，继上周在法庭上两次高调败诉之后LGBTQ权利和DACA。
“今天的决定确保了快速驱逐，一个打击非法移民的重要工具，将保持快速，”国土安全部代理部长查德·沃尔夫在对美国广播公司新闻的声明中说。"这项裁决是法律和秩序以及美国公众的胜利。"
移民倡导者认为，对于成千上万在美国寻求庇护的移民以及那些在申请被拒后希望获得第二次机会的人来说，这一决定是一个重大挫折。
美国公民自由联盟律师李·盖伦特在法庭上代表这位斯里兰卡人辩护说:“这一裁决不符合宪法的基本原则，即被剥夺自由的人有自己的一天在法庭上，这包括寻求庇护者。”。“这一决定意味着，一些面临有缺陷的驱逐令的人可能会在没有司法监督的情况下被强行驱逐，从而使他们的生命处于严重危险之中。”
2020年3月2日，在华盛顿，公众在美国最高法院外排队等待在法庭内听取口头辩论的机会。德鲁·安格雷尔/盖蒂图像公司
斯蒂芬·布雷耶法官和鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格法官同意多数人的判决，但强调应狭隘地关注此案。
“我们不需要，也不应该走得更远，”布雷耶写道。“我们不需要走得更远，因为政府要求我们决定并同意审查一个仅限于我们面前的案件的问题。”
本案的核心是1996年《非法移民改革和移民责任法》，该法建立了管理庇护申请的制度，并简化了驱逐无资格申请的移民的程序。
阿利托写道:“国会的判决是，在全面驱逐程序完成之前拘留所有寻求庇护者将会给我们的移民系统带来不可接受的负担，释放他们将会带来不必要的风险，使他们无法出席驱逐程序。”。
阿利托指出，过去五年来，大多数寻求庇护者(77%)的“可信恐惧”主张都得到了批准。
在异议中，在口头辩论中对政府批评最多的索尼娅·索托马约尔和埃琳娜·卡根法官表示，对庇护案件的司法监督是符合宪法的，也是必要的。
索托马约尔写道:“今天的决定限制了司法机关履行宪法义务保护个人自由的能力，并取消了权力分立的一个关键组成部分。”。“在令状保护最强的情况下，这将使行政自由裁量权的重大行使不受约束。它还增加了错误移民决定的风险，这些决定违反了相关法规和条约。”
这项裁决是在6月30日最高法院传统任期结束前几天做出的。13项决定仍悬而未决，包括关于堕胎、宗教学校税收抵免、平价医疗法案、选举团和特朗普总统财务记录传票的决定。
Supreme Court allows Trump's fast-track removal of rejected asylum seekers
TheSupreme Courton Thursday delivered a win for PresidentDonald Trump'simmigration policy, affirming the government's ability to expedite removal ofasylum seekerswhose applications have been denied.
The case involves a Sri Lankan man who was arrested on the U.S.-Mexico border while seeking asylum in 2017. After animmigrationofficer said he failed to show "credible fear of persecution" if forced to return home, the man petitioned a federal court for habeas corpus, the ability to have a judge review someone's detention.
In a 7-2decision, the court said the Sri Lankan asylum seeker -- Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam -- is ineligible to challenge his deportation under both federal law and the Constitution.
"Habeas has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention, but respondent invokes the writ to achieve an entirely different end, namely, to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country," Justice Samuel Alito writes in the majority opinion, joined by the court's four other conservatives.
"Respondent attempted to enter the country illegally and was apprehended just 25 yards from the border. He therefore has no entitlement to procedural rights other than those afforded by statute," Alito added.
The ruling is aboost for Trump, who has tried to crack down on aflood of asylum casesin the legal system, on the heels of two high-profile losses at the court last week in cases onLGBTQ rightsandDACA.
"Today's decision ensures that expedited removal, a vital tool for combating illegal immigration, will remain expeditious," said acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf in a statement to ABC News. "This ruling was a victory for law and order and the American public."
Immigrant advocates saw the decision as a major setback for the thousands of migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. and those hoping for a second chance after having their claims rejected.
"This ruling fails to live up to the Constitution's bedrock principle that individuals deprived of their liberty have their day in court, and this includes asylum seekers," said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued before the court on behalf of the Sri Lankan man. "This decision means that some people facing flawed deportation orders can be forcibly removed with no judicial oversight, putting their lives in grave danger."
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred with the majority judgement, but emphasized that it should be narrowly focused on this case.
"We need not, and should not, go further," Breyer wrote. "We need not go further because the Government asked us to decide, and we agreed to review, an issue limited to the case before us."
At the heart of the case is the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which established the system for regulating asylum applications and streamlining the process of removing immigrants with meritless claims.
"It was Congress's judgment that detaining all asylum seekers until the full-blown removal process is completed would place an unacceptable burden on our immigration system and that releasing them would present an undue risk that they would fail to appear for removal proceedings," Alito wrote.
The majority of asylum seekers over the last five years, 77%, have had their claims of "credible fear" approved, Alito noted.
In dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were most critical of the administration during oral arguments, said judicial oversight of asylum cases is constitutional and necessary.
"Today's decision handcuffs the Judiciary's ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers," Sotomayor wrote. "It will leave significant exercises of executive discretion unchecked in the very circumstance where the writ's protections have been strongest. And it increases the risk of erroneous immigration decisions that contravene governing statutes and treaties."
The ruling comes just days before the traditional end of the Supreme Court term on June 30. Thirteen decisions are still pending, including decisions on abortion, tax credits for religious schools, the Affordable Care Act, Electoral College and subpoenas for President Trump's financial records.
