TAIWAN HRJ
 

評析川普旅遊禁令與其相關司法判決

作者:李怡俐(國立清華大學科技法律研究所助理教授)

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》(Immigration and 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。

關鍵字
旅遊禁令、司法審查、中度審查標準、司法謙讓、移民
 


An Analysis of Trump's Travel Bans and Related Judicial Decisions

Author:Yi-li Lee(Assistant Professor, Institute of Law for Science and Technology, National Tsing Hua University)

Abstract:

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.

Keywords
travel ban, judicial review, rational basis review, judicial deference, immigration

全文下載

 
憲法與國際人權法的匯流:專訪張文貞教授
 
台灣的國家人權委員會應該設置在哪裡?-專訪魏千峯
 
台灣的國家人權委員會應該設置在哪裡?-專訪李念祖
 
她(他)們還是我們?:專訪陳文葳
 
台灣與國際人權標準:專訪陳玉潔
 
海外人權運動四十年:專訪王渝
 
學術研究與公共服務:專訪廖福特
 
理論與實踐的辯證:專訪顧玉玲