动态摇摆
世界复杂之，人心不古之，没有确定的正确答案，只有不断的探索和尝试，变化。
一例
o3 重写版
Judge Wilkinson’s Sage Advice on Abrego Garcia
威尔金森法官对阿布雷戈·加西亚案的见解
Why is Trump so dead set on denying due process to the wrongly deported El Salvadoran migrant?
特朗普为何执意拒绝为这名被误遣返的萨尔瓦多移民提供应有的正当程序？
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HOLDS A DOCUMENT WITH NOTES ABOUT KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA IN THE OVAL OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE, APRIL 18.
【照片说明】2025 年 4 月 18 日，特朗普总统在白宫椭圆形办公室手持关于基尔马尔·阿曼多·阿布雷戈·加西亚的笔记。
President Trump and the federal courts are heading toward a needless constitutional collision in the case of deportee Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia that would weaken both the executive and the judiciary. Enter conservative federal appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson with some sage advice to avoid it.
在阿布雷戈·加西亚案上，特朗普与联邦法院正走向一场完全可以避免、却会同时削弱行政与司法权威的宪法对撞。保守派上诉法官 J·哈维·威尔金森出面提出明智建议，或可化解僵局。
In a pointed and eloquent opinion late Thursday, Judge Wilkinson (joined by two others on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals) rejected the Administration’s request to stay a lower court’s attempt to implement the Supreme Court’s guidance in the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia. The High Court said the executive branch should “facilitate” his return to the U.S. from a Salvadoran prison so he can receive due process.
周四深夜，威尔金森与第四巡回上诉法院另外两名法官发表措辞尖锐而优雅的意见书，拒绝政府要求——即暂停下级法院根据最高法院指示、安排阿布雷戈·加西亚返回美国接受正当程序的行动。最高法院早已命令行政部门“协助”他从萨尔瓦多监狱返美。
“‘Facilitate’ is an active verb,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. The Supreme Court’s instruction that lower courts respect the executive’s primacy in foreign affairs does not “allow the government to do essentially nothing.”
威尔金森指出，“协助”是个主动词。最高法院虽然尊重行政部门在外交事务中的主导地位，但这并不意味着政府可以袖手旁观。
Judge Wilkinson is referring to the Administration’s attempt to dance around the meaning of facilitate: Attorney General Pam Bondi said she understood it to mean “provide a plane” if El Salvador chose to release Mr. Abrego Garcia.
他批评政府试图偷换“协助”概念：司法部长潘·邦迪声称，如果萨尔瓦多愿放人，美国只需“提供一架飞机”。
Not quite, Judge Wilkinson wrote. “[T]he government’s argument that all it must do is ‘remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return,’ . . . is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”
威尔金森驳斥称，政府所谓“只要消除阿布雷戈·加西亚返美的国内障碍即可”的说法，与最高法院要求其促成当事人在萨尔瓦多获释的命令背道而驰。
That’s a crucial point. Mr. Abrego Garcia was under a 2019 withholding order while living in the U.S., which prevented the government from deporting him to El Salvador. The White House said Thursday he will never live in the U.S. again. But the power to bar Mr. Abrego Garcia from the U.S. is not the same as the power to deport him to a foreign prison without due process.
关键在此：2019 年起，阿布雷戈·加西亚受到“禁止遣返令”保护，当局不得将其遣返萨国。白宫却表示他永不得再住美。拒绝其入境，与未经正当程序把人送进外国牢房，是两码事。
President Trump is handling this case so far with what might be called malicious compliance. He isn’t directly violating a court order, but he is testing the limits of what he can get away with legally. Judge Wilkinson’s opinion is respectfully calling out the gamesmanship.
迄今为止，特朗普采取了所谓“恶意合规”：表面不违抗法院，但不断试探法律底线。威尔金森以礼相谏，戳穿了这种把戏。
The Trump Administration shouldn’t want this fight to return to the Supreme Court, which may decide it has to take a firmer stand than it did the first time. That raises the stakes and could leave Mr. Trump with the choice of backing down and complying with the courts, or defying them at some political cost.
特朗普政府应避免把争端再推回最高法院；若最高法院采取更强硬立场，局势将升级，特朗普只能在让步守法与继续对抗间作痛苦抉择。
The White House wants this to be a fight over immigration policy, and it claims Mr. Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member. But this is beside the legal point. No one denies that Mr. Trump has the power to deport an illegal migrant, especially a gang member.
白宫试图把案件塑造成移民政策之争，并称阿布雷戈·加西亚是 MS-13 成员。但这与法律焦点无关。无人否认总统有权遣返非法移民，尤其是帮派分子。
“Perhaps” he is a gang member, “but perhaps not,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.” If he is, then the Administration should have no worries about a hearing to establish the point. Mr. Trump may understand this because on Thursday he referred questions on Mr. Abrego Garcia to his lawyers. But ultimately this is his call.
“也许”他是帮派分子，“也许不是，”威尔金森写道，“无论如何，他仍享有正当程序。”若真是帮派分子，举行听证即可坐实。特朗普显然知晓此节，周四已将相关询问交给律师，但最终拍板权仍在他手。
His lawyers would profit in particular from reading the last part of Judge Wilkinson’s opinion, which the press has ignored. It’s advice to judges and the President to avoid a clash.
威尔金森意见书的结尾，媒体少有人提及，却值得总统与法官细读——那是关于如何避免权力冲突的忠告。
“Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both,” he wrote. “The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions.”
他写道：“如今三权之齿轮几近不可逆地相互摩擦，恐令双方俱损。司法机关因合法性屡遭质疑而受创；行政机关则将因公众视其无法无天而受累，并引发连锁反应。”
There is much wisdom in those words. Our constitutional system depends on checks and balances, but also on some flexibility in the joints of that balancing. Mr. Trump may be able to get away with defying the courts on Mr. Abrego Garcia, but it isn’t worth the political cost for him or the country. He has far bigger issues on which he will need the Supreme Court in the next four years.
此言甚有见地。宪政运作既需权力制衡，也需关节处的弹性。特朗普或许能在阿布雷戈·加西亚案上“硬闯”成功，但政治代价不值得。未来四年，他在更重大议题上仍需最高法院相助。
<!-- o3 翻译 -->
威尔金森法官对阿布雷戈·加西亚案的睿智建议
特朗普为何如此执意剥夺这名被错误遣返的萨尔瓦多移民的正当法律程序？
2025年4月18日，在白宫椭圆形办公室，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普手持一份关于基尔马尔·阿曼多·阿布雷戈·加西亚的备注文件。
在被递解者基尔马尔·阿曼多·阿布雷戈·加西亚一案上，总统特朗普与联邦法院正走向一场本可避免的宪政冲突，这场冲突将削弱行政部门与司法部门的权威。此时，保守派联邦上诉法官 J·哈维·威尔金森登场，给出避免冲突的睿智意见。
周四深夜，威尔金森法官（与第四巡回上诉法院的另外两位法官共同）在一份尖锐而雄辩的意见中，驳回了政府请求——即暂停下级法院依据最高法院指示、执行对阿布雷戈·加西亚案处理的要求。最高法院曾指出，行政部门应当“协助”把他从萨尔瓦多监狱送回美国，以便他获得正当程序。
“facilitate（协助）是一个主动动词，”威尔金森写道。最高法院虽要求下级法院尊重行政部门在外交事务中的主导地位，但这并不意味着“允许政府基本无所作为”。
威尔金森之所以这样说，是因为政府在“协助”一词上作了文字游戏：司法部长潘·邦迪表示，她的理解是——若萨尔瓦多决定释放阿布雷戈·加西亚，美国只需“提供一架飞机”。
事实并非如此，威尔金森写道。政府辩称它只要“消除阿布雷戈·加西亚返美的任何国内障碍”即可……但在最高法院命令政府协助他从萨尔瓦多羁押中获释的背景下，这一论点站不住脚。
这一点至关重要。阿布雷戈·加西亚在美居留期间受 2019 年禁止遣返令保护，政府不得将他遣返萨尔瓦多。白宫周四却称他永不会再住在美国。但禁止他入境，与未经正当程序把他送进外国监狱，是两回事。
迄今为止，特朗普总统的做法可称“恶意合规”——没有公然违抗法院命令，却在测试法律底线。威尔金森的意见礼貌而尖锐地揭穿了这种“玩游戏”的手法。
特朗普政府不应希望这场争执再回到最高法院，否则最高法院可能比上一次表态更强硬。这将抬高赌注，迫使特朗普要么让步遵从司法裁决，要么顶着政治代价继续对抗。
白宫试图把争议描绘成移民政策之争，并称阿布雷戈·加西亚是 MS-13 帮派成员。但这与法律焦点无关。无人否认特朗普有权遣返非法移民，尤其是帮派成员。
“也许”他是帮派成员，“也许不是，”威尔金森写道，“无论如何，他仍然享有正当程序权。”如果他确属帮派成员，政府大可放心举行听证加以确认。周四，特朗普已把相关问题交由律师处理，但最终决定权仍在他手中。
特朗普的律师尤其应细读威尔金森意见的最后部分——媒体对此几乎未作报道——那里给出了如何避免冲突的建议。
他写道：“如今，各权力分支正濒临在一场可能削弱双方的冲突中不可逆地互相摩擦。司法机关将因对其合法性的持续质疑而大受损害，我们因惯例与超然只能偶尔回应；行政机关亦将因公众对其无法无天的观感及其伴生后果而损失惨重。”
这些话蕴含深刻智慧。我们的宪政体系依赖制衡，也依赖在制衡关节处保持一定弹性。特朗普或许能在阿布雷戈·加西亚案上藐视法院而全身而退，但这对他本人及国家而言都不值得付出政治代价。接下来四年，他在更重大议题上仍需最高法院支持。