美最高法院支持特朗普旅行禁令部分內容

The US Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a partial but significant victory on Monday, allowing his controversial ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority nations to take effect for people who lack a “bona fide relationship” in the US.

美國最高法院週一送給唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)一場部分的、但意義重大的勝利，允許其針對六個穆斯林佔多數國家旅行者的有爭議的禁令對那些在美國缺乏“真實關係”的外國人生效。

In practice, the unanimous decision will allow into the US only individuals with a “close familial relationship” to a US citizen or a formal tie to an American company or organisation, the court said.

美國最高法院表示，在實踐中，這項一致性的裁決將只允許與美國公民有“密切家庭關係”或與美國公司或組織有正式關係的個人進入美國。

The president welcomed the ruling as “a clear victory for our national security”, saying it would allow him to “use an important tool for protecting our nation’s homeland” from threats from “six terror-prone countries”.

特朗普總統對這項裁決表示歡迎，將其形容爲“我國國家安全的一個明確勝利”，並稱這將允許他“利用一件重要工具來保護我們的國土”免遭來自“六個有恐怖主義傾向的國家”的威脅。

“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” Mr Trump said. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”

“作爲總統，我不能允許那些想要傷害我們的人進入我們的國家，”特朗普說，“我想要的是那些熱愛美國及其所有公民的人、那些勤勞和有成效的人。”

Mr Trump’s attempts to restrict entry into the US, which began just a week after his inauguration, ignited the first big controversy of his presidency. Protests snarled airports and lawsuits quickly erupted in multiple federal courts.

特朗普就職僅一週就開始的限制入境美國的嘗試，引發了其總統任期的首次重大爭議。抗議活動癱瘓了多個機場，訴訟案件在多個聯邦法院快速出現。

Monday’s ruling represented his first legal win after a series of sharp defeats, but sets up a potential showdown over presidential power.

週一的裁決是特朗普在一系列重挫之後取得的首次司法勝利，但也針對總統權力確立了一種潛在的攤牌模式。

“The most significant aspect of this is that it’s unanimous, that all the justices agreed the lower courts made a big mistake,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law.

南德克薩斯法學院(South Texas College of Law)教授喬希?布萊克曼(Josh Blackman)說：“這項裁決意義最重大的方面是其意見一致，即所有最高法院大法官一致認爲，下級法院犯了一個大錯誤。”

The ruling effectively suspended the lower courts’ decisions while the Supreme Court itself can hear arguments on the merits of the case. Acting on the final day of their annual term, the justices will not provide a full hearing in the case until they reconvene in October, leaving much of Mr Trump’s ban in place during for at least three months.

這一裁決實際上擱置了下級法院的判決，讓最高法院自己審理本案的是非曲直。此次裁決在最高法院大法官開始夏季休假的前一天做出，他們在10月再度匯聚一堂之前不會開庭審理本案，這將讓特朗普實施大部分禁令至少3個月。

Opponents of the ban warned that the ruling could spur a wave of new legal challenges as travellers attempt to prove they should be allowed into the US.

反對這項禁令的人士警告稱，隨着旅行者試圖證明自己應該被允許入境美國，這項裁決可能引發一波新的司法挑戰。

The court’s decision is likely to spawn “chaos at the border and new lawsuits as foreign nationals and refugees argue that they are entitled to enter the United States,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University Law School professor.

康奈爾大學法學院(Cornell University Law School)教授斯蒂芬?耶魯-勒爾(Stephen Yale-Loehr)說，最高法院的裁決很可能引發“邊境的混亂和新的訴訟，因爲外國公民和難民會聲稱他們有資格進入美國。”

Mr Trump’s travel order would have halted for 90 days all arrivals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to permit a study of foreign governments’ security vetting procedures. The order also would have barred new refugee arrivals for 120 days and capped the annual total of such admissions at 50,000.

特朗普的旅行禁令本應於3月生效，在90天內禁止所有來自伊朗、利比亞、索馬里、蘇丹、敘利亞和也門的公民入境，以便對外國政府的安全審查程序進行研究。該行政命令本來還應禁止新難民入境120天，並將每年入境難民總數限制在5萬人。