On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court made two big decisions. These decisions give the US government more power to stop people from entering the country.

2026年6月25日，最高法院做出了兩項重大決定。這些決定賦予美國政府更多權力來阻止人們進入美國。

The Court said people in Mexico are not inside the US. Because of this, the government can stop them from asking for help (asylum) at the border. Some judges think this is bad because people might cross the border illegally.

法院表示在墨西哥的人不屬於在美國境內。因此，政府可以阻止他們在邊境申請庇護。部分法官認為這樣並不妥，因為可能會導致人們非法越境。

Also, the Court said the government can take away special protection (TPS) from some people. Now, about 356,000 people from Haiti and Syria may have to leave the US. The government says this is the law.

此外，法院表示政府可以取消部分人的臨時保護狀態（TPS）。現在，約35萬6千名來自海地與敘利亞的人可能必須離開美國。政府表示這是法律規定。

Some leaders in Congress are worried. They think this will cause health problems for people. The government says they need strong walls and technology to stop bad groups at the border.

國會中部分領導人表示擔心。他們認為這將導致人們出現健康問題。政府則表示需要強而有力的圍牆與技術，以阻止邊境的危險組織。

The Supreme Court gave the President more power. Now, the courts cannot stop many of these immigration rules.

最高法院賦予了總統更多權力。現在，法院無法阻止許多這類移民規則。

On June 25, 2026, the United States Supreme Court made two important decisions. These rulings confirm that the Trump administration has the legal power to limit asylum applications at the southern border and end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain foreign citizens.

2026年6月25日，美國最高法院做出了兩項重要決定。這些裁決確認川普政府擁有法律權限限制南部邊境的庇護申請，並終止部分外國公民的臨時受保護身份 (TPS)。

In the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court discussed what it means to 'arrive' in the U.S. A 6-3 majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, decided that people who are physically in Mexico have not yet 'arrived' in the U.S. Consequently, they are not entitled to asylum screenings. This decision allows the government to continue using 'metering' policies, which let officials block entry at the border based on available space. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, asserting that this rule might encourage people to cross the border illegally and ignores the goal of protecting people fleeing danger.

在 Mullin v. Al Otro Lado 案中，法院討論了什麼才算作「抵達」美國。由大法官 Samuel Alito 領導的 6-3 多數票決定，身體仍在墨西哥的人尚未「抵達」美國。因此，他們沒有權利要求庇護審查。這項決定允許政府繼續使用「配額控制」政策，讓官員能根據可用空間封鎖邊境入口。然而，大法官 Sonia Sotomayor 表示反對，主張這項規則可能會鼓勵人們非法越境，且忽略了保護逃離危險人士的目標。

At the same time, in Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled that the government's decision to end TPS cannot be challenged in court. This means the administration can remove legal status from about 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. Although some argued that these decisions were based on racial prejudice, the majority found that the administration was simply reviewing all TPS programs. This ruling gives the executive branch more control over the TPS program, which currently helps 1.3 million people from 17 different countries.

與此同時，在 Mullin v. Doe 案中，法院裁定政府終止 TPS 的決定不能在法院被挑戰。這意味著行政部門可以取消約 35 萬名海地人和 6,100 名敘利亞人的合法身份。儘管有人認為這些決定基於種族偏見，但多數派發現行政部門僅是在審查所有 TPS 計畫。這項裁決賦予行政部門對 TPS 計畫更多控制權，該計畫目前幫助來自 17 個不同國家的 130 萬人。

These court decisions happen during a time of tension between the government and Congress. For example, Representative Mike Lawler expressed concern that deporting Haitian TPS holders could cause a healthcare crisis. On the other hand, the administration emphasized that the program was always meant to be temporary. Furthermore, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin stated that physical and technological barriers are necessary to stop cartel activities, even though Congress has questioned the safety of detention centers.

這些法院決定發生在政府與國會關係緊張之時。例如，眾議員 Mike Lawler 表達擔憂，驅逐持有 TPS 的海地人可能會導致醫療危機。另一方面，行政部門強調該計畫一直被設定為臨時性質。此外，國土安全部部長 Markwayne Mullin 表示，實體與技術障礙對於阻止卡特爾活動至關重要，儘管國會曾質疑拘留中心的安全性。

These Supreme Court decisions significantly increase the president's power over border control and the removal of humanitarian protections, while reducing the ability of courts to oversee these policies.

這些最高法院的決定顯著增加了總統對邊境控制與撤銷人道主義保護的權限，同時降低了法院監督這些政策的能力。

The United States Supreme Court issued two rulings on June 25, 2026, affirming the Trump administration's authority to restrict asylum applications at the southern border and terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for specific foreign nationals.

美國最高法院於 2026 年 6 月 25 日發布兩項裁決，確認川普政府有權限制南部邊境的庇護申請，並終止特定外國國民的臨時保護狀態（TPS）。

In the matter of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court addressed the legal definition of 'arriving in the United States' under the Immigration and Nationality Act. A 6-3 majority, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, concluded that individuals physically situated in Mexico have not 'arrived' within the U.S. and are therefore not entitled to asylum screenings. This determination permits the reinstatement of 'metering' policies, which allow officials to block entry at ports of entry based on capacity. Conversely, the dissent, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, posited that this interpretation creates a perverse incentive for illegal crossings and ignores the statutory intent to protect those fleeing persecution.

在 Mullin v. Al Otro Lado 一案中，法院針對《移民與國籍法》下「抵達美國」的法律定義進行裁定。由大法官 Samuel Alito 撰寫的 6 比 3 多數意見認為，身體位於墨西哥境內的人士尚未「抵達」美國，因此無權要求庇護篩查。此裁定允許恢復「分流」政策，使官員能根據承載能力在入境口岸封鎖進入。相反地，由大法官 Sonia Sotomayor 領銜的少數意見則認為，此種解釋會為非法越境創造扭曲的誘因，且無視了保護逃離迫害人士的法定意圖。

Simultaneously, in Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled that the TPS statute precludes judicial review of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) determinations to terminate protections. This ruling facilitates the removal of legal status for approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. While plaintiffs alleged that these terminations were motivated by racial animus—citing derogatory rhetoric from the executive—the majority found that the administration's systematic termination of all TPS designations undergoing review provided a race-neutral justification. The decision effectively expands executive discretion over the TPS program, which currently affects 1.3 million individuals across 17 nations.

與此同時，在 Mullin v. Doe 一案中，法院裁定 TPS 法令排除對國土安全部（DHS）終止保護決定之司法審查。此裁決將導致約 35 萬名海地人與 6,100 名敘利亞人失去合法身份。儘管原告指稱這些終止決定源於種族仇視——並引用行政部門的貶低性言論——但多數意見認為，行政部門系統性地終止所有處於審查階段的 TPS 指定，提供了與種族無關的正當理由。該決定有效地擴大了行政部門對 TPS 計劃的自由裁量權，該計劃目前影響 17 個國家的 130 萬人。

These judicial outcomes coincide with heightened legislative and administrative friction. While some members of Congress, such as Representative Mike Lawler, expressed concern regarding the potential for a healthcare crisis resulting from the deportation of Haitian TPS holders, the administration maintains that the program was intended to be temporary. Furthermore, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has emphasized the necessity of physical and technological barriers to counter cartel activities, despite congressional inquiries into detention facility mortality rates.

這些司法結果正值立法與行政摩擦加劇之際。雖然部分國會議員（如眾議員 Mike Lawler）對遣返海地 TPS 持有人可能導致的醫療危機表示擔憂，但行政部門堅持認為該計劃原本就是臨時性的。此外，國土安全部長 Markwayne Mullin 強調，儘管國會對拘留設施的死亡率提出質詢，但仍有必要建立物理與技術屏障以對抗卡特爾活動。

The Supreme Court's decisions significantly consolidate executive power over border management and the revocation of humanitarian statuses, effectively limiting judicial oversight of these immigration policies.

最高法院的決定顯著鞏固了行政部門在邊境管理與撤銷人道主義身份方面的權力，有效地限制了對這些移民政策的司法監督。