最高法院暂缓洛杉矶地区移民拦截禁令 联邦探员可继续巡查盘问
2025年9月8日，位于华盛顿的美国最高法院批准联邦政府的暂缓申请，冻结了加利福尼亚州中区联邦地区法院7月11日发布的一项命令。该命令原本禁止联邦移民探员在加州洛杉矶地区仅凭四项因素拦截盘问居民，案件直接关系到加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县及周边多县居民的日常出行与工作。
这起案件名为 Noem 诉 Vasquez Perdomo，案号25A169，地方法院案号为2:25-cv-5605。最高法院的命令写明，7月11日命令在第九巡回上诉法院审理上诉期间、以及联邦政府如及时申请调卷令时在该申请处理完毕前，全部暂缓执行；若调卷令被拒绝，暂缓自动终止。命令由大法官 Kagan 呈交全院后作出，命令本身未附多数意见的说理。
被冻结的地方法院命令所限制的四项因素是：当事人的明显种族或族裔、说西班牙语或说带口音的英语、出现在公交站、洗车场、日工招募点或农业场所等特定地点，以及所从事工作的类型。地方法院此前认定，联邦政府的拦截模式是仅凭这四项因素进行盘问。
大法官 Kavanaugh 单独撰写赞同意见。他写道，联邦政府在原告的诉讼资格与第四修正案两个问题上都有相当机会胜诉；明显的族裔单凭一项不能构成合理怀疑，但与其他突出因素一并考虑时可以是相关因素之一。他还写道，移民探员只能短暂拦截并询问身份，被拦者若是美国公民或合法居留者，说明后应立即获准离开。
Kavanaugh 在意见中引用联邦政府的估算称，全美至少有1,500万人非法居留，洛杉矶地区约有10%的人口非法居留，即2,000万人中约200万人。他所说的洛杉矶地区，是加州中区所辖范围，包括洛杉矶县、文图拉县、圣巴巴拉县、圣路易斯奥比斯波县、橙县、河滨县与圣贝纳迪诺县。
大法官 Sotomayor 撰写反对意见，大法官 Kagan 与 Jackson 加入。她写道，联邦政府2025年6月初在洛杉矶及周边县启动名为 Operation At Large 的移民执法行动，武装蒙面探员在洗车场、拖车场、农场与公园等地拦截居民，其后一个月内完成近2,800次与移民有关的逮捕。她称暂缓决定是紧急案卷的又一次严重误用，并写道，人们不该生活在一个政府可以抓走任何看上去是拉丁裔、说西班牙语、又像在做低薪工作的人的国家。
这项暂缓令只是上诉期间的临时安排，并不裁定四项因素拦截是否合宪的最终问题。案件将先由第九巡回上诉法院继续审理，联邦政府其后还可申请最高法院调卷复审。（来源：美国最高法院）
Supreme Court Stays Injunction on Los Angeles Immigration Stops, Letting Federal Agents Continue Patrol Questioning
On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington granted the federal government's application for a stay, freezing a July 11 order of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. That order had barred federal immigration agents in the Los Angeles area of California from stopping residents based on four factors alone, in a case that directly affects daily travel and work in Los Angeles County, California, and several neighboring counties.
The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169, under district court case No. 2:25-cv-5605. The Supreme Court's order states that the July 11 order is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if one is timely sought; if certiorari is denied, the stay terminates automatically. The application was presented to Justice Kagan and referred by her to the Court, and the order itself carries no majority reasoning.
The four factors restricted by the stayed district court order are a person's apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites and agricultural sites, and the type of work the person does. The district court had found that the government's pattern of stops rested on those four factors alone.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurrence. He wrote that the government had shown a fair prospect of success both on the plaintiffs' standing and on the Fourth Amendment issue, and that apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion but can be a relevant factor when considered along with other salient factors. He also wrote that immigration officers may only briefly stop a person to inquire about immigration status, and that a person who is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully present will be free to go after the brief encounter.
In his concurrence, Kavanaugh cited the government's estimates that at least 15 million people are in the United States illegally, and that about 10 percent of the people in the Los Angeles region, about 2 million out of a total population of 20 million, are illegally in the country. The Los Angeles area he described is the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She wrote that in early June 2025 the government launched an immigration enforcement operation called Operation At Large across Los Angeles and its surrounding counties, with armed and masked agents stopping people at car washes, tow yards, farms and parks, and made nearly 2,800 immigration-related arrests over the course of the next month. She called the stay yet another grave misuse of the Court's emergency docket, writing that people should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.
The stay is only an interim arrangement while the appeal proceeds and does not decide the ultimate question of whether stops based on the four factors are constitutional. The case will continue first in the Ninth Circuit, after which the government may also seek Supreme Court review by certiorari. (Source: U.S. Supreme Court)
来源：美国最高法院
发布：GSM·美国（发布链接）
图片来源：图：位于华盛顿的美国最高法院大楼西立面（资料图）。摄影：Carol M. Highsmith，美国国会图书馆藏，无已知出版限制，经 Wikimedia Commons（File:U.S. Supreme Court building-m.jpg）。 / Photo: The west facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (file photo). Photo by Carol M. Highsmith, Library of Congress, no known restrictions on publication, via Wikimedia Commons (File: U.S. Supreme Court building-m.jpg).
GSM Global · 本篇英文版 English edition of this story
