特朗普政府旅行禁令的合法性研究--基于“特朗普诉夏威夷案”的视角

Trump v.Hawaii:Legality of the Trump Administration's Travel Ban

美国总统特朗普自2017年起通过行政命令和宣言的形式颁布了一系列旅行禁令,2020年又在现行有效的三号禁令上新增六个国家,引发国内外争议。这些禁令因涉嫌针对穆斯林为主的国家而受到来自多个州的司法挑战。2018年,美国联邦最高法院在“特朗普诉夏威夷案”(Trump v.Hawaii)中对三号禁令的合法性做出判决,多数意见认为禁令符合《移民和国籍法》授予总统禁止外国公民入境的权力,也符合美国宪法第一条修正案,因其基于国家安全而非宗教敌意做出,满足合理性审查。但法院对审查标准的选择和适用受到质疑,多方批评其没能正视此项“穆斯林禁令”的真实动机。本案充分表明美国总统和行政机构在管理外国公民出入境方面享有极大权力空间,且可能涉及歧视问题。

Since 2017,U.S.President Donald J.Trump has issued a number of travel bans,including six additional banned countries added in 2020.The travel bans faced a series of legal challenges in federal courts on statutory and constitutional grounds.In 2018,the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld the travel ban.The majority held that the ban does not exceed the President s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.They found the ban to have a legitimate grounding in national security apart from any religious animus.The Court ruled that it has survived the rational basis review and does not violate the First Amendment.However,the standard of review and its application have attracted criticisms,and the Court was blamed for not inquiring into the underlying purpose behind the“Muslim Ban”.Trump v.Hawaii shows the ample power that the President has to impose entry restrictions,despite the discrimination concerns these restrictions may raise.