| 中文摘要 |
美國共和黨候選人唐納‧川普自2017年1月20日就任美國總統後，即頒布了三個頗具爭議的旅遊禁令，最大的爭議是，此三個旅遊禁令禁止數個以穆斯林為多數國家的公民，進入美國本土境內。三個旅遊禁令也引發一系列的司法訴訟：2018年6月25日，美國聯邦最高法院針對第三版旅遊禁令作成最後判決；此一判決認為第三版旅遊禁令並未違反美國《移民與國籍法》（Immigrationand Nationality Act）的相關規定，也沒有違反美國《憲法》增修條文第1條政教分離原則。本文認為，從美國聯邦最高法院的理由與結論來看，法院一如其在有關外國人入境與驅逐的事項上，高度尊重政治部門的政策決定，此一司法謙讓的態度也強化總統在移民事務的權限。
President Donald Trump of the United States issued three controversial travel bans after his inauguration on January 20, 2017. The most controversial of the three travel bans restricted entry to the U.S. for citizens of several Muslim-majority countries. Those travel bans became the subjects of legal challenges, one after another, in the federal courts of the United States. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States made a final decision to uphold the third travel ban. The Court decided the third travel ban neither violated the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States, nor violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This paper argues that this decision shows that the Court respects the decisions of the executive branch regarding the entry and expulsion of foreigners. The judicial deference, shown in this decision, also inevitably strengthens the President’s power over immigration issues. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
