法官犀利质问特朗普禁穆令一案的双方辩护律师

Maura Dolan, Jaweed Kaleem  | 20170208 | 1:26pm | Los Angeles Times

左起：Richard R. Clifton法官（2002年照片），William Canby法官（2015年照片）Michelle T. Friedland法官（2014年照片）

美国联邦上诉法庭合议庭就特朗普总统最近颁布的备受争议的旅行禁令（禁止7个主要为穆斯林国家的公民进入美国）被是否违法一案听审，特朗普政府星期二上诉要求恢复该禁令，目前上诉法庭还未给出确定裁决结果。在这个持续了一个多小时的听审会上，美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院的三位法官组成的合议庭似乎驳回了特朗普政府的观点即各州和法院都没有权利质疑总统颁布的行政命令。这个法令通过禁止7个中东和北非国的公民进入美国境内来保护美国不受恐怖分子袭击。

这场关于旅行禁令的争论被大众认为是特朗普这个从未主持过公共事务、特立独行的新总统能否摆脱法院的束缚，兑现他当初备受争议竞选诺言的小测试。特朗普的行政命令将新难民以及那些可能涉恐国家的游客拒之门外，这在全世界范围内引发了抗议并导致机场陷入混乱，因为至少6万名即将入境的游客本来有效的美国签证顿时失效了。

西雅图的一位联邦法官上周颁布了一项临时限制令暂缓特朗普禁令的实行。这一临时限制令让那些回国看望家人、持工作签证的工程师、希望入探望亲戚的人又重新得以进入美国。如果三位法官的裁决有利于政府可能会将现在的局面再次翻转。特朗普政府的律师说在政府能起草合适方案确保国家远离恐怖袭击之前这次裁定至关重要。

星期二关于特朗普政府要求恢复禁令的上诉听证会引起了公众极高的关注。这个听审会的语音内容在CNN（美国有线电视新闻网络）和MSNBC（微软全国有线广播电视公司）上在线直播，这对于一场电话听审会来说是前所未有的。一位法庭发言人说：将近137,000个人在法院的网站上在线收听听审会，这是第九巡回法院自两年前采用流媒体网络直播以来听众最多的一次听审。

华盛顿州和明尼苏达州质疑特朗普行政命令的颁布有违宪法，认为该禁令的出发点并不是出于合理保护国家安全的目的，而是基于对穆斯林的偏见。他们声称这禁令会导致留学生无法顺利完成学业，让雇主瞬间损失重要的雇员。

美国司法部反对称暂时的禁令并非针对特定宗教，而是针对和恐怖主义关联的民族；并且该禁令只是临时方案，待正式的审查措施到位后就会被撤下。联邦政府律师认为目前由于禁令导致的可能对商业、税收、人才的损害仅仅是大家推测的。

提到上诉法庭的案子大多很难裁断，双方律师都受到了法官的犀利提问。但这三位第九巡回法院法官中的两位在听审完案子后都没透露裁决倾向。然而第三位法官Richard Clifton，他由总统George W. Bush任命，向代表华盛顿州和明尼苏达州的律师Gen. Noah G. Purcell抛出了犀利的问题。Clifton反复指出这个针对7个指定国家公民进入美国的禁令只影响到世界上15%的穆斯林人口。他问这如何被认定是歧视穆斯林的体现。“我对此无法理解，当世界上绝大部分的穆斯林未受影响时我们推断的宗教歧视该从何而谈起。”Clifton说。同时他也提问是否应该如罗巴特法官一样暂停禁穆令，那7国中有些人从未来过美国，有些是持合法签证的公民。提到地方法院联邦法官James Robart的临时限制令，Clifton问道“这个限制令难道不也跨线了吗？”

合议庭其他两位法官似乎赞同Clifton的说法，然而美国各州对特朗普的禁令有其合法的质疑权利。当Clifton要求华盛顿州和明尼苏达州代表律师出具证据证明这个履行禁令有宗教歧视倾向时，法官William Canby（Carter总统任命）和法官Michelle Friedland（Obama总统任命）似乎在帮助州代表律师。Friedland提醒华盛顿州和明尼苏达州代表律师道：“你已经提供过对于指控的有利证据，对吗？”Canby很快也补充要求联邦政府提供合理证据来证明他们要求恢复禁穆令的合理性。

August Flentje，美国司法部长的特殊顾问，辩论称特朗普对七国公民入境的命令仅仅是在正式安全举措实施之前的临时暂停计划。他说这些国家被列入是因为国会和奥巴马政府同样曾视其为恐怖分子的来源地。但Clifton说特朗普政府有的仅仅是“完美摘录”来证明如果临时限制令不立马解除将会给国家带来不可挽回的损失。 “但实际上目前并不是没有合适的审查流程来筛选这些国家入境美国的签证申请。”他说。 “是否有足够的理由说明这中间真的有风险存在？” Clifton问道。

Friedland问联邦政府代表律师当前政府如何看待这条禁止所有穆斯林进入美国的命令。Flentje试图偏转问题但最终承认这条命令可能因违反宪法受到质疑挑战。

加州大学欧文分校法学院院长Erwin Chemerinsky表示他深知联邦律师要为解除禁令会导致不可挽回损失而举证的困难之处。匹兹堡大学法学教授Arthur Hellman说他对Clifton向华盛顿州律师提出的部分苛刻问题震惊了。 “他看上去好像很生气，”Hellman补充说，“但之后他好像对联邦政府律师也很严苛。”

法律专家提醒不要过度解读法官提问时的语气，法官对案件双方都会严格发问。 “你不要过度解读口头辩论时法官的语气，因为他的本职工作就是向双方提出质问。我认为那些从未听过实际法庭辩论的人在听到法官针对美国司法部长的发问后会说，”天啊，这真是犀利的问题，也许法官打心底里不认同联邦政府的观点吧。“Jessica Levinson说道，她是洛杉矶Loyala法学院的一名法学教授。她认为大家需要明白的是法庭上唱黑脸严厉提问是“法官的天职”。法官就是应该让辩护律师更清晰的论证他方的观点，同时也有责任让在场的其他法务人员更清楚律师所说的内容。

第九巡回法庭无法就这一案件中的违宪问题马上作出判断。负责裁决此案的合议庭本周只会在这些关于总统行政令争论以及正当程序都解决后对罗巴特裁决是否该继续作出判决。要推翻Robart法官的限制令，联邦政府必须马上拿出证据证明如果不立即恢复旅行禁令美国将遭受不可挽回的损失。如果上诉法庭最终支持限制令的实行，特朗普政府可以上诉到美国最高法院。一旦禁穆令是否违反宪法争论的问题解决了，这个案子可能会回到Robart裁决的问题上。

_________________________________________________

本译文仅供个人研习、欣赏语言之用，谢绝任何转载及用于任何商业用途。本译文所涉及法律后果均由本人承担。本人同意简书平台在接获有关著作权人的通知后，删除文章。

转载自【洛杉矶时报】2017.02.08 1:26pm 报道 作者：Maura Dolan, Jaweed Kaleem

翻译：卖猪肉的姚叔

原文如下：（如有兴趣，可直接下载洛杉矶时报APP阅读）

A federal appeals court panel reviewing President Trump’s controversial limits on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries appeared skeptical Tuesday of the administration’s arguments seeking to reinstate his order.

In a hearing that lasted more than an hour, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to dismiss the administration’s arguments that neither the states nor the courts have the authority to challenge the executive order, which seeks to bar travels from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa to protect the United States from terrorists.

The fight over the travel moratorium is being viewed as a test of whether the new and unconventional president, who has never before held public office, will be reined in by the courts as he tries to implements his controversial campaign promises.

Trump’s executive order suspending the admission of new refugees and blocking travelers from countries with possible links to terrorism prompted protests around the world and threw airports into chaos as at least 60,000 foreigners with valid visas saw them suddenly canceled.

A federal judge Seattle last week issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ban, and those potentially affected by it – students who had been overseas visiting their families, engineers on work visas, relatives hoping to visit their families in the U.S. -  began streaming into the country again.

A ruling in favor of the government by the three-member panel could reverse the situation once again. Administration lawyer said such a ruling was essential until the government can draft adequate protections to keep possible terrorists out to the country.

Tuesday’s hearing on the government’s bid to reinstate it drew an extraordinary level of public attention.

The audio feed was broadcast live on CNN and MSNBC – highly unusual for a legal teleconference. Nearly 137,000 people listened in on the court’s website, the largest audience “by far” of any hearing since the 9th Circuit began streaming two years ago, a court spokesman said.

The states of Washington and Minnesota have challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, arguing that it was motivated by a negative attitude toward Muslims, not a reasoned attempt to protect the country. They said it would prevent students from finishing their education and leave employers suddenly without needed workers.

The Justice Department counters that the moratorium was not aimed at any particular religion, but at nations associated with terrorism, and is intended to apply only until new vetting measures are in place. Federal attorneys contend that the potential harm cited by the states -  business loss, reduced tax revenue and disruption of high education -  are merely speculative.

Appeals court arguments are often hard to judge; lawyers for both sides came in for pointed questioning.

But two of the three 9th Circuit judges hearing the case said little to indicate they would rule for Trump.

On the other hand, Judge Richard Clifton, an appointee of President George W. Bush, directed his toughest questions to Washington state Solicitor Gen. Noah G. Purcell, who represented his state and Minnesota during the hearing.

Clifton repeatedly noted that the moratorium on entry from the seven targeted nations affected only 15% of the world’s Muslim population. He asked how that amounted to discrimination against Muslims.

“I have trouble understanding where we’re supposed to infer religious animus when in fact the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected,” he said.

Clifton also asked whether the administration should be prohibited, under the judge’s order, from applying a ban to people in those seven countries who have never been to the U.S. or held visas.

“Why isn’t this over-board?” Clifton asked, referring to U.S. District Judge James Robart’s temporary restraining order.

The panel seemed to agree, however, that the states had the legal right to challenge Trump’s order.

And both Judge William Canby, an appointee of President Carter, and Judge Michelle Friedland, a President Obama appointee, appeared to come to the aid of the states’ lawyer when Clifton pressed him for evidence that the travel order was motivated by religious bias.

“You have actually supported these allegations with exhibits, haven’t you?” Friedland reminded the lawyer representing Washington and Minnesota.

Canby quickly added that it was the federal government, not the states, that had the burden of showing its arguments would eventually prevail.

August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant U.S. attorney general, argued that Trump’s order merely put a “temporary pause” on entry from the seven countries until security concerns could be reviewed.

He said those nations were targeted because Congress and the Obama administration determined they posed special risks of terrorism.

But Clifton said the administration had only “pretty abstract” evidence that irreparable harm would result if the temporary restraining order were not removed.

It isn’t like there haven’t been processes in place” to provide extra screening of visa applications from those countries, he said.

“Is there any reason for us to think there is a real risk?” Clifton asked.

Friedland asked the federal government’s lawyer how the administration would view an order that said all Muslims were banned.

Flentje tried to deflect the question but eventually conceded that such an directive could be challenged on constitutional grounds.

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said he was struck by the difficulty the federal lawyer had in providing evidence that removing the hold would cause irreparable harm.

University of Pittsburgh Law Professor Arthur Hellman said he was surprised at the tone of some of Clifton’s question for the Washington state attorney.

“He seemed almost angry,” Hellman said. “But later he was also a little hard on the federal government attorney.”

Legal experts caution against reading too deeply into the tone of questioning from judges, who are often pointed on both sides of a case.

“The reason you can’t read a lot into oral arguments is that it’s the judges’ job to perform a searching inquiry on both sides. I think people who haven’t heard oral arguments may hear the questions for the Department of Justice and they say, ‘ Oh my God, these are such sharp questions, and maybe they don’t agree at all with the federal government,’” said Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyala Law School in Los Angeles.

What’s important to keep in mind, she said, is “it’s the judges’ job to play devil’s advocate. It’s their job to help the attorneys articulate their best argument. It’s their job also try to convince their colleagues.”

The 9th Circuit is not expected to decide the key constitutional issues  in the case immediately. The panel in its ruling this week will determine only whether the court order against enforcement of the ban should continue until the complex legal debate over executive power and due process is resolved.

To reverse Judge Robart’s restraining order, the federal government must show that the country would suffer irreparable harm if the travel ban is not immediately reinstated.

If the appeals court upholds the restraining order, the administration can appeal to the U.S. supreme Court. Once the legality of the hold is resolved, the case would return to Robart.