快手撤換！川普解任拒背書的代理司法部長，她說：我不相信行政命令合法

美國司法部代理部長葉慈（Sally Yates）美國時間週一（1/30）對發出內部信件，表明司法部將不會為川普的七國穆斯林移民禁令辯護，這被美國媒體視為是歐巴馬任內官員與共和黨白宮的對決。而川普則在同一天內快刀斬亂麻地宣布開除葉慈，並提名美國維吉尼亞東區聯邦地區法院法官丹納・波恩特（Dana Boente）為代理司法部長。

白宮發言人在週一晚間發佈聲明表示解任葉慈的司法部代理部長職務，因為葉慈「拒絕執行保護美國公民的法令，背叛了司法部」。

波恩特則是隨後透過白宮發布聲明表示，「將監督司法部男男女女履行宣誓執行的職責，並且捍衛我們總統的合法命令。」

同時間，白宮也佈達了新的相關人事任命案：移民及海關執法局代理局長將由Thomas Homan出任，至於現任代理局長Daniel Ragsdale是否繼續留任移民及海關執法局尚不得而知。

葉慈於週一下午寄信給給司法部內的民事訴訟部門律師們，要求他們在她任內不得為川普上周簽署的七國移民與難民暫時禁止入境行政命令辯護。由於在該行政命令生效後，一日內就出現一連串維權人士與移民倡議人士針對該項命令所提出的法律訴訟。

根據《華爾街日報》報導，開除葉慈將為白宮帶來另一項頭痛問題：經過參議院同意程序的她是目前司法部唯一能夠批准美國海外情報監聽法庭（Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court）的人，而這個法庭負責的就是涉及恐怖活動與間諜活動的國安案件。

葉慈在信中表示，「我的責任在於確保司法部的立場不但具備法律正當性，同時也能夠在考量各方面事實後表達出我們對於法律的最好觀點。此外，我有責任確保司法部在法庭裡採取的立場維持住此機構尋求公正性、追求正確性這樣嚴肅責任的一致性。在目前這個階段，我無法確認為行政命令辯駁與我上述這些責任具有一致性，同時我也無法確認此行政命令是合法的。」

她同時也指出司法部內的法律顧問辦公室角色在於審視行政命令看來是否合法，但她也提到，該審視有所限制同時並未顧及該項移民禁令所帶來的後果。

葉慈是在前任司法部長Loretta Lynch於本月下台後出任代理部長。

其實川普的七國入境禁令一出，引發官僚系統如司法界與外交界的諸多反彈聲音。

《路透社》報導，民主黨執政的15州總檢察長聯合聲明譴責總統川普的七國入境禁令，同時也正在討論是否要在法庭中挑戰該項命令。

15州包括加州、紐約州、賓州、華盛頓州、麻薩諸塞、夏威夷、維吉尼亞、佛蒙特、奧瑞岡、甘乃迪克、新墨西哥、愛荷華、緬因、馬里蘭、伊利諾，以及哥倫比亞特區。

《BBC》報導，美國外交官界也正在草擬一份「異議備忘錄」，準備透過國務院的「異議管道」表達不同看法。美國國務院向《BBC》表示，這樣表達異議的方式並不少間，但參與簽署的外交官卻多達數百名，是「前所未見」的。

白宮方面則是回應，嚴斥抗議總統川普七國入境禁令的外交官，發言人史派瑟（Sean Spicer）表示，參與聯署的職業外交官「應該奉行命令，否則就該另謀高就。」

Sally Yates信件原文：

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.