The Supreme Court of the United States made new rules. Now, the government can stop more people from entering the country.

美國最高法院制定了新規則。現在政府可以阻止更多人進入該國。

The Court says people are not in the US until they walk across the border. Now, officers can stop people and not let them ask for help.

法院表示，人們在跨越邊境之前並不被視為在美國。現在，執法人員可以攔截人們，且不允許他們尋求幫助。

The government can also stop special protection for people from Haiti and Syria. These people may have to leave the US.

政府也可以停止對來自海地和敘利亞人士的特別保護。這些人可能必須離開美國。

Also, the government can send permanent residents away more easily. They do not need a lot of proof of a crime to start this process.

此外，政府可以更輕鬆地將永久居民驅逐出境。他們不需要大量的犯罪證明即可啟動此程序。

Now the government has more power. It is easier for them to send migrants away.

現在政府擁有更多權力。他們驅逐移民變得更加容易。

The Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions that give the Trump administration more power to limit asylum access, end humanitarian protections, and make it easier to deport legal permanent residents.

美國最高法院做出數項裁決，賦予川普政府更多權力來限制庇護獲准、終止人道主義保護，並使驅逐合法永久居民變得更容易。

In the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court decided by a 6-3 majority that people have not 'arrived' in the US until they physically enter the country. This means border officials can use 'metering' policies to block asylum seekers from entering to avoid processing their claims. Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that the law should be read based on physical entry. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this decision encourages illegal entry and ignores the humanitarian goals of the 1980 Refugee Act.

在 Mullin v. Al Otro Lado 案中，法院以 6 比 3 的多數票決定，人們在身體上進入美國之前並不視為「到達」美國。這意味著邊境官員可以使用「分流」政策來阻止庇護申請者進入，以避免處理其申請。大法官 Samuel Alito 強調，法律應根據身體進入來解讀。然而，大法官 Sonia Sotomayor 主張此決定鼓勵非法入境，並無視了 1980 年《難民法》的人道主義目標。

At the same time, the Court ruled that the government has the authority to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for about 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. The majority stated that the law prevents courts from reviewing the Secretary of Homeland Security's decisions on this matter. Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, asserting that the decision to remove protections for Haitians was based on racial prejudice. The majority rejected this claim, stating the decision was based on policy rather than race.

同時，法院裁定政府有權終止約 35 萬名海地人和 6,100 名敘利亞人的臨時保護狀態 (TPS)。多數意見指出，法律禁止法院審查國土安全部部長在此事上的決定。大法官 Elena Kagan 不同意此觀點，並主張取消海地人保護的決定是基於種族偏見。多數派駁回了這一說法，稱該決定是基於政策而非種族。

Furthermore, in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the Court ruled that border officials do not need strong evidence of criminal activity to treat a returning permanent resident as an 'applicant for admission.' This makes it easier to start deportation proceedings. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this gives the government too much power and could threaten the security of millions of legal residents. Consequently, White House adviser Stephen Miller stated that the US is now 'completely closed' to asylum seekers.

此外，在 Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau 案中，法院裁定邊境官員不需要強而有力的犯罪活動證據，即可將一名返回的永久居民視為「入境申請人」。這使得啟動驅逐程序變得更加容易。大法官 Ketanji Brown Jackson 警告，這賦予政府過多權力，可能會威脅數百萬合法居民的安全。因此，白宮顧問 Stephen Miller 表示，美國現在對庇護申請者「完全關閉」。

These judicial decisions show a major shift toward giving the executive branch more control over immigration, making it faster for the government to remove migrants and limit legal entry.

這些司法決定顯示出一個重大轉向，即賦予行政部門更多對移民的控制權，使政府能更快地驅逐移民並限制合法入境。

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a series of rulings that broaden the power of the Trump administration to restrict asylum access, terminate humanitarian protections, and facilitate the removal of lawful permanent residents.

美國最高法院已發布一系列裁決，擴大了川普政府限制庇護申請、終止人道主義保護以及促進驅逐合法永久居民的權力。

In the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court established a 6-3 majority holding that individuals do not 'arrive in' the United States until they have physically entered the territory. This interpretation permits the revival of 'metering' policies, whereby border officials may block asylum seekers from entering the country to prevent the processing of their claims. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, asserted that the phrasing of the immigration statutes supports an ordinary-meaning reading of physical entry. Conversely, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in her dissent that this construction creates a perverse incentive for illegal entry and ignores the humanitarian imperatives of the 1980 Refugee Act.

在 Mullin v. Al Otro Lado 一案中，法院以 6 比 3 的多數票裁定，個人在身體上進入領土之前，不被視為「到達」美國。這種解釋允許恢復「分流」政策，即邊境官員可以阻止庇護申請者進入美國，以防止處理其申請。代表多數派撰寫判決書的 Samuel Alito 法官堅稱，移民法條的措辭支持對「身體進入」採取普通含義的解讀。相反，Sonia Sotomayor 法官在反對意見書中認為，這種解釋會為非法入境創造扭曲的誘因，且無視了 1980 年《難民法》的人道主義必要性。

Simultaneously, the Court ruled in favor of the administration's authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian nationals. The majority opinion maintained that the statutory framework of the 1990 law precludes judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's determinations regarding the designation or termination of a foreign state's status. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, alleging that the decision to terminate protections for Haitians was influenced by racial animus, citing specific derogatory remarks made by the President. The majority rejected this claim, stating the cited comments were not overtly racial and could be based on race-neutral policy justifications.

與此同時，法院裁定支持行政部門終止約 35 萬名海地國民與 6,100 名敘利亞國民的臨時保護狀態 (TPS)。多數意見認為，1990 年法律的法定框架排除了對國土安全部部長關於指定或終止外國國家狀態之決定進行司法審查。Elena Kagan 法官表示反對，指控終止海地人保護的決定受到種族偏見影響，並引用了總統發表過的特定貶低言論。多數派駁回了此項指控，稱被引用的言論並非明顯種族主義，而可能是基於種族中立的政策理由。

Furthermore, in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the Court determined that border officials are not required to possess clear and convincing evidence of criminal activity to categorize a returning lawful permanent resident as an 'applicant for admission.' This designation facilitates the initiation of removal proceedings. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, suggesting that this ruling grants the government excessive discretion, potentially jeopardizing the security of permanent residency for millions of individuals.

此外，在 Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau 案中，法院裁定邊境官員不需要擁有明確且令人信服的刑事活動證據，即可將返回的合法永久居民歸類為「入境申請人」。此項認定方便了驅逐程序的啟動。Ketanji Brown Jackson 法官表示反對，認為此裁決賦予政府過大的自由裁量權，可能會危及數百萬人永久居留權的安全。

Following these decisions, White House adviser Stephen Miller characterized the United States as 'completely closed' to asylum seekers and asserted that Haiti is a safe environment for return. Additionally, the administration has petitioned the Court to allow the mandatory detention of non-citizens residing within the U.S. without bond hearings, arguing that such measures prevent the evasion of removal proceedings.

在這些決定之後，白宮顧問 Stephen Miller 將美國形容為對庇護申請者「完全關閉」，並堅稱海地是一個安全的返回環境。此外，行政部門已向法院請願，要求允許在沒有保釋聆訊的情況下，強制拘留居住在美國境內的非公民，理由是此類措施可防止逃避驅逐程序。

The current judicial landscape reflects a significant shift toward executive deference in immigration matters, effectively streamlining the administration's capacity to expel migrants and restrict legal entry.

目前的司法局勢反映出移民事務正大幅向尊重行政權偏移，有效地簡化了行政部門驅逐移民與限制合法入境的能力。