您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 国际 >> 正文

特朗普旅行禁令再度受挫

更新时间:2017-6-13 18:24:29 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

Trump Loses Travel Ban Ruling in Appeals Court
特朗普旅行禁令再度受挫

WASHINGTON — A second U.S. appeals court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, delivering on Monday the latest in a string of defeats for the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.

华盛顿——周一,又一家联邦上诉法院做出了不利于唐纳德·特朗普总统那经过修订的旅行禁令的裁决。试图限制来自几个以穆斯林为主的国家的旅客入境,但却遭遇一系列挫折的特朗普政府,由此受到最新一次打击。

The administration has already sought a Supreme Court review of a similar decision issued last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Virginia. Monday’s decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco.

弗吉尼亚州里士满的美国第四巡回上诉法院于上月做出了类似的裁定,政府已经提请最高法院进行复核。周一的裁决则出自旧金山的美国第九巡回上诉法院。

The two courts employed different reasoning to arrive at the same basic conclusion. The 4th Circuit said the revised executive order violated the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion.

两家法院根据不同的理由得出了基本相同的结论。第四巡回上诉法院说,修订过的行政令违反了第一修正案中禁止政府塑造宗教信仰的条款。

The 9th Circuit, by contrast, rested its conclusions on statutory grounds. It said Trump had exceeded the authority Congress granted him in making national security judgments in the realm of immigration without adequate justification.

第九巡回上诉法院的结论则是基于成文法。它说特朗普行事超出了国会授予他的权限,在没有充分理由的情况下,就移民事务做出了关于国家安全的论断。

“The order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality,” the 9th Circuit’s opinion said. “National security is not a ‘talismanic incantation’ that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power.”

“这项行政令基于国籍原因暂时禁止逾1.8亿人入境,却没有提供充分的理由,”第九巡回上诉法院的意见书称。“国家安全并不是一种一经启用,就可以为行使任何一项乃至所有行政权力提供支撑的‘护身符咒’。”

The decision, from a three-judge panel, was unanimous. It was issued jointly by Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould and Richard A. Paez. All three were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

一个三人合议庭一致做出了这项裁决。共同做出裁决的分别是迈克尔·达利·霍金斯(Michael Daly Hawkins)、罗纳德·M·古尔德(Ronald M. Gould)和理查德·A·帕斯(Richard A. Paez)法官。三人当初都是由比尔·克林顿(Bill Clinton)总统任命的。

The ruling affirmed most of a March decision from Judge Derrick K. Watson, of the U.S. District Court in Hawaii. But the appeals court narrowed the injunction issued by Watson in a significant way.

这项裁决认可了夏威夷联邦地区法院法官德里克·K·沃森(Derrick K. Watson)于今年3月所做裁定的大部分内容。但第九巡回上诉法院显著缩小了沃森所发禁制令的范畴。

The appeals court said Watson had erred in barring the administration from conducting internal reviews of its vetting procedures while the case moved forward.

该法院说,沃森的错误是,在案件向前推进期间禁止政府对其审查程序进行内部审核。

That may turn out to be important as the Supreme Court considers how to address the two cases.

事实或许会证明,在最高法院考虑如何处理上述两个案件之际,这一点非常重要。

The key part of the executive order suspended travel from six predominantly Muslim countries for 90 days to give the administration time to conduct a review of its vetting procedures. If that review can soon be completed, the justices may decide that the case will soon be moot.

在90天里暂时禁止来自六个以穆斯林为主的国家的人士入境,以便让政府有时间对其审查程序进行内部审核,是行政令的关键内容。如果审核可以很快完成,法官们或许会认为案子很快便将毫无意义。

In briefs filed Monday in the Supreme Court, lawyers challenging the revised executive order urged the court not to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of the 4th Circuit’s decision or to stay the injunctions entered in the two cases.

在周一提交给最高法院的几份简明书状中,对经过修订的行政令提出质疑的律师们敦促最高法院不要理会特朗普政府就第四巡回上诉法院的裁决提起的上诉,也不要冻结两案中的禁制令。

They said the cases might be moot as soon as Wednesday.

他们说,这两个案子最快到周三也许就毫无意义了。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表