譯者 | 王昊東 新南威爾士大學
編輯 | 扎恩哈爾 新疆農業大學
責編 | 扎恩哈爾 新疆農業大學
初步限制令
目錄
一、簡介
二、事實認定
三、法律結論
四、初步限制令
一、｜簡介
This matter comes before the Court on the emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by States of Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon (Plaintiff States) (Dkt. No. 10). The Plaintiff States challenge an Executive Order issued January 20, 2025, by President Trump, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Having considered the motion, Defendants’ response, if any, and the argument of the parties, if any, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff States’ emergency motion for a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order effective at 11:00 AM on January 23, 2025. The Court enters the following findings of the fact and the conclusions of law.
本案因華盛頓州、亞利桑那州、伊利諾伊州和俄勒岡州（以下稱“原告各州”）提出的緊急臨時限制令動議（檔案編號10）而提交至法院。原告各州對2025年1月20日特朗普總統釋出的名為《保護美國公民身份的意義和價值》的行政命令提出質疑。經審議動議、被告的回應（如有）以及各方的辯論（如有），法院批准原告各州的緊急動議，自2025年1月23日上午11:00起實施為期14天的臨時限制令。法院作出以下事實認定和法律結論。
二、｜事實認定
1. Plaintiff States face irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Order hams the Plaintiff States directly by forcing state agencies lose federal funding and incur substantial costs to provide essential and legally required medical care and social services to resident children subject to the Order. Plaintiff States' residents are also irreparably harmed by depriving them of their constitutional right to citizenship and all the associated rights and benefits, including: subjecting them to risk of deportation and family separation; depriving them of access to federal funding for medical care and eligibility for basic public benefits that prevent child poverty and promote child health; and impacting their education, employment, and health.
1. 原告各州因該行政命令的簽署和實施面臨不可挽回的損害。該命令直接導致原告各州的州機構失去聯邦資金，並需要承擔大量開銷以向受該命令影響的居民兒童提供基本且法律規定的醫療服務和社會服務。此外，該命令還透過剝奪原告各州居民的憲法賦予的公民權及相關權利和福利（包括面臨被驅逐和家庭分離的風險；失去醫療聯邦資金和防止兒童貧困、促進兒童健康的基本公共福利資格；以及影響教育、就業和健康狀況）對居民造成不可彌補的傷害。
（圖片來源於網路）
2. These harms are immediate, ongoing, and significant, and cannot be remedied in the ordinary course of litigation.
2. 這些損害是直接、持續且嚴重的，無法透過正常的訴訟程式獲得救濟。
3. A temporary restraining order against Defendants, as provided below, is necessary until the Court can consider Plaintiff States' forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction.
3. 為了讓法院審議原告各州即將提交的初步禁令動議，有必要對被告發布臨時限制令。
三、｜法律結論
1. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the subject matter of this action.
1. 法院對被告及本案的標的事項具有管轄權。
2. Plaintiffs' efforts to contact Defendants reasonably and substantially complied with
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Civil Rule 65(b).
2. 原告在努力聯絡被告方面已合理且充分地符合《聯邦民事訴訟規則》第65(b)條和《地方民事規則》第65(b)條的要求。
（圖片來源於網路）
3. The Court deems no security bond is required under Rule 65(c).
3. 根據《聯邦民事訴訟規則》第65(c)條，法院認定無需繳納擔保金。
4. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit. Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing of concrete and imminent economic injury. If Plaintiffs cannot treat birthright citizens as precisely that- citizens then they will lose out on federal funds for which they are otherwise currently eligible. Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 767 (2019). That is a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury to satisfy Article III standing. Id. Plaintiffs also have standing to challenge the Order because of the new and ongoing operational costs they allege. City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Servs, 944 F.3d 773, 787-88 (9th Cir. 2019).
4. 原告有權提起本訴。原告已充分證明其面臨具體且迫切的經濟損失。如果原告無法將出生公民視為真正的公民，他們將失去目前本應獲得的聯邦資金。（參見《紐約州訴商務部案》，588 U.S. 752, 767 (2019)）。這一點足以構成符合憲法第三條的具體且迫切的損害。此外，原告因新的持續性運營開銷也有權對該命令提出質疑。（參見《舊金山和縣訴美國公民及移民服務局案》，944 F.3d 773, 787-88 (9th Cir. 2019)）。
5. To obtain a temporary restraining order, the Plaintiff States must establish (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) irreparable harm is likely in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in the Plaintiffs' favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
5. 為獲得臨時限制令，原告必須證明：(1) 他們在案情上可能勝訴；(2) 若無初步救濟，可能遭受不可彌補的損害；(3) 權衡各方利益，傾向於支援原告；以及(4) 禁令符合公共利益。（參見《溫特爾訴自然資源保護委員會案》，555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)；《聯邦民事訴訟規則》第65(b)(1)條）。
6. There is a strong likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on the merits of their claims that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Immigration and Nationality
Act. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 -99 (1898); Regan v. King, 49 F. Supp. 222, 223 (N.D. Cal. 1942), aff'd, 134 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1943), cert denied, 319 U.S. 753 (1943); see also Gee v. United States, 49 F. 146, 148 (9th Cir. 1892).
6. 原告極有可能在其主張上勝訴，即該行政命令違反了《第十四修正案》和《移民與國籍法》。（參見《美國訴黃錦亞案》, 169 U.S. 649, 694-99 (1898)）；《里根訴金案, 49 F. Supp. 222, 223 (N.D. Cal. 1942)，其判決在上訴中被維持（134 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1943)），並且最高法院拒絕進一步審理（cert. denied, 319 U.S. 753 (1943)）；另見《吉訴美國案》（Gee v. United States, 49 F. 146, 148 (9th Cir. 1892)）。
7. The Plaintiff States have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. The Executive Order will directly impact Plaintiff States, immediately increasing unrecoverable costs for providing essential medical care and social services to States's residents and creating substantial administrative burdens for state agencies that are forced to comply with the Order. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 14 at 12; 15 at 9; 25 at 5; 26 at Moreover, the Plaintiff States will suffer immediate repercussions of the Order's mandates as described in its enforcement Section 3(a), (b).
7. 原告也證明了，如果沒有初步救濟，他們可能遭受不可彌補的損害。該行政命令將直接影響原告各州，立即增加向居民提供基本醫療服務和社會服務的不可挽回的成本，並使必須遵守該命令的州機構面臨巨大的行政負擔。（例如，見檔案編號14第12頁；編號15第9頁；編號25第5頁；編號26第4頁、第6頁。）此外，原告各州將立即受到該命令執行條款第3(a)、(b)節規定的影響。
(圖片來源於網路）
8. The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiff States and the public interest strongly weighs in favor of entering temporary relief.
8. 權衡各方利益，傾向於支援原告各州，公共利益也強烈支援臨時救濟的頒佈。
四、｜初步限制令
Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are hereby fully enjoined from the following:
a. Enforcing or implementing Section 2(a) of the Executive Order;
b. Enforcing or implementing Section 3(a) of the Executive Order; or
c. Enforcing or implementing Section 3(b) of the Executive Order.
因此，現作出如下命令：
1. 被告及其所屬的官員、代理人、僱員、律師，以及任何與其有積極合作的人，在收到本命令後，被全面禁止實施以下行為：
a. 執行或實施該行政命令的第2(a)節
b. 執行或實施該行政命令的第3(a)節
c. 執行或實施該行政命令的第3(b)節
2. This injunction remains in effect pending further orders from this Court.
2. 本禁令在法院另行通知前維持有效。