日米法学会総会
2019年6月23日（日）10時〜17時
同志社大学今出川キャンパス良心館1階107教室

10:00〜10:10
趣旨説明
溜箭将之
2017年1月、トランプ大統領は就任7日後に大統領令を発し、テロ対策の一環としてイスラム系7か国の国民のアメリカ入国を禁じた（トラベル・バン）。安全保障上の問題がある人物かどうかにかかわらずムスリム系の国の国民の入国を一律に禁止する大統領令に対しては、イスラム教を信仰する者に対する差別ではないかという憲法上の疑義が呈された。またそもそもこのような措置を大統領令を通じて行えるのか、という法の支配そのものに関わる問題をはらんでいた。
直ちにトランプ大統領に対する憲法訴訟が提起された。大統領令の差止を求める訴えについては、司法が安全保障問題に口を挟めるのか、また仮に差止めるとしても全米レベルで可能なのかなど、司法の側も困難な法的問題に直面した。ワシントン州連邦地裁が最初に差止命令を下したのを皮切りに、下級審レベルでは差止を認める判断が複数出された。しかし、連邦最高裁は2018年6月、トランプ対ハワイ判決において入国禁止を合憲とし、差止命令を無効とする判決を下した。
一連の推移は、司法の役割と限界、差止の射程と機能、執行権の機能と限界、信教の自由などの権利保障など、様々な憲法問題を惹起した。自由と安全をどのように調整するか、司法と政治の関係をどのように考えるか、そして法の支配のレゾンデートルは何か。これらは、アメリカのみならず日本を含む立憲主義諸国に共通する原理的問題である。日本との関係では、トランプ対ハワイ判決は、日系アメリカ人の強制収容を合憲としたコレマツ判決の先例的価値を否定し、その際に日系アメリカ人の市民団体のアミカスも引用している。
入国管理制度を巡っては、日米ともに法改正や運用が大きく変化しつつある。メキシコ国境の壁建設を巡るトランプ大統領と民主党議会の対立は、連邦政府の長期閉鎖にまで発展した。日本では、外国人の在留資格を広げる入管法改正がなされたが、政府や市民社会に彼(女)らを受け入れる準備を整えるのは、これからである。移民と排外主義の問題が世界各国で噴出しつつある今日、トランプ対ハワイ判決が提起する諸問題に対しては、広い視野から深層的・横断的分析が求められる。
本総会では、最初の差止命令を下したジェームズ・L・ロバート裁判官、行政法と執行権の研究でアメリカを代表するピーター・L・ストラウス教授を講演者として招き、アメリカの実務家と研究者がこの問題をどのように考えているのかを明らかにする。日本側でも、憲法研究者に加え、裁判官、移民法や航空行政の分野の実務家を招き、憲法・司法制度の日米比較、移民法・航空行政に関わる国際問題を含め、多面的な角度から検討を加える。

10:10〜11:00
FEALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY
Hon. Judge James L. Robart
During his 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Candidate Donald Trump made several incendiary comments about immigration and Muslims entering the United States. Among the campaign promises on his website was: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
On November 8, 2016, Candidate Trump won the majority of Electoral College votes and was elected President of the United States. President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017.
In the afternoon of Friday, January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order ("Travel Ban 1.0"), which suspended immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries for a period of 90 days and suspended the United States refugee program for 120 days. Travel Ban 1.0 created chaos at airports across the United States with international connections. The State of Washington, representing itself and interested parties, sued the Trump Administration over Travel Ban 1.0 on Monday, February 1, 2017. The State of Washington filed its suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and the case was randomly assigned to the Honorable James L. Robart.
At a hearing on Friday, February 4, 2017, to consider the State of Washington's request for injunctive relief, Judge Robart entered a temporary restraining order and enjoined the enforcement of Travel Ban 1.0 nationwide. President Trump immediately began tweeting about the decision. He called Judge Robart a "so-called judge" and the temporary restraining order "ridiculous." President Trump also tweeted, "If something happens blame him and [the] court system." On appeal, the Ninth Circuit interpreted Judge Robart's temporary restraining order as a preliminary injunction and declined the Trump Administration's request to stay Judge Robart's order. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit rejected―as contrary to longstanding United States legal authority―the notion that the President's authority in the areas of immigration and national security was unreviewable. After the Ninth Circuit's ruling upholding Judge Robart's injunction, President Trump abandoned his efforts to defend Travel Ban 1.0, and he subsequently rescinded it and replaced it with Travel Ban 2.0.
Travel Ban 2.0 suspended immigration from six predominantly-Muslim countries and suspended the United States refugee program for another 120 days. The United States District Courts for the District of Hawaii and the District of Maryland both enjoined Travel Ban 2.0, and the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively, upheld those district court decisions. The restrictions in Travel Ban 2.0 expired before the Supreme Court could review the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit decisions, and the Supreme Court vacated the lower court decisions as moot.
President Trump then issued Travel Ban 3.0, which suspended immigration from eight countries, all of which were Muslim-majority countries, except for two: Venezuela and North Korea. Once again, the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal upheld district court decisions enjoining enforcement of the Ban.
In June 2018, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the lower courts and upheld Travel Ban 3.0. The Court held that Congress had statutorily delegated to the President decisions about whether and when to suspend entry to the United States, and Travel Ban 3.0 fell within that comprehensive delegation of authority. The Court also held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Travel Ban 3.0 violated the Establishment Clause. The Court held that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a "fundamental sovereign attribute" that is "largely immune from judicial control." Further, although the court engages in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen, that review is limited to whether the Executive gives a "facially legitimate and bona fide" reason for its action.
The travel ban litigation was an opening salvo in an ongoing controversy over the limits of presidential authority. The controversy has showcased the tensions between the federal judiciary and the executive branch, and between the lower federal courts and the United States Supreme Court. It has also focused attention on federal district courts issuing nationwide injunctions. In his speech, Judge Robart will discuss a trial court's perspective on handling a major Constitutional case with nationwide―or even worldwide―implications.

11:00〜11:45
日本の一裁判官から見たトラベル・バン
多々良周作
トランプ対ハワイ判決は，大統領令の執行に対する全米レベルでの仮差止命令（preliminary Injunction）を発令した下級審の判断につき，大統領令が合法・合憲であるという判断を前提に，本案における勝訴の見込みがないことを理由にこれを破棄し，審理を下級審に差し戻すというものであった。訴訟手続全体を見渡すと，各審級で実体判断があり，訴訟要件（司法判断適合性，原告適格等）は大きな争点とされていないことが特徴として挙げられる。仮に日本で同種の事実関係が生じた場合に，誰が原告となり，誰を被告として，どのような訴訟形式を利用して，どのような救済を裁判所に求めることになるのか。また，裁判所はどのような判断枠組みに基づいて救済を与えることの適否を判断するのか。本報告では，アメリカのPreliminary Injunctionの発令要件に類似する仮の差止めの申立て（行政訴訟法３７条の５第２項）を念頭に置きながら，上記各論点に関する日米の法制の比較検討をすることとし，さらに，アメリカのConstitutional Litigationが日本の憲法訴訟に示唆することについて考察を試みる。

14:00〜14:50
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY AND THE RULE OF LAW
Professor Peter L. Strauss
The transformation of American administrative law over the decades has been extraordinary for Professor Peter Strauss, who began practicing it when Lyndon Johnson was President. Perhaps the most notable transformations are those respecting the incidence of and processes for adopting secondary legislation − what Americans know as rulemaking, by which elements of the executive branch create regulations that, if valid, have same force and effect as legislatively adopted statutes. Together with these transformations has come a transformation in the relationship of the American President to the agencies that Congress has authorized to adopt regulations. These transformations have occurred steadily over at least four decades, influenced by the impact of new health, safety and environmental regulations on the national economy, by changes in our understanding of the nature of risk, by the frequency with which the American legislature and presidency have been in different political hands, and by the impact of the digital age. They have dramatically altered what Professor Strauss has called the "psychology of government," heightening the perceived responsibility of the President for this activity, and correspondingly reducing the responsibility of agency leaders. Remarkable characteristics of Donald Trump's presidency may have made these transformations seem more sudden and dramatic than they have been.
Professor Strauss's talk will begin with a brief account of the special characteristics of American presidential government, as distinct from the parliamentary models with which a Japanese audience may be familiar. He will then outline this history of change. Then he will turn to the remarkable presidency of Donald Trump, and the impacts of his administration − particularly in the context of immigration and our national borders.
Unlike parliamentary systems, even those controlled by coalition governments, America's President has no necessary political connection to its Congress. The persons who lead government departments may never also be members of Congress. Although Americans speak of department heads as the President's cabinet, it does not act as a collective; as recent events have revealed, the President has unfettered control over each cabinet member's term of office, and the cabinet essentially lacks any control over his. To be sure, the President must secure Congress's approval for the appointment of department heads and for budgetary allocations to them. Each of these processes has the potential to create divided loyalties. But although Congress must authorize a department to adopt secondary legislation its approval of regulations that may then be adopted is not required once it has done authorized the activity. Congress can control agency rulemaking only by new legislation, which may be subject to presidential veto.
In the 1960's and '70's, new understandings and new technologies turned the principle focus of American national regulation from economic controls to health, safety and environmental regulation. This made rulemaking a much more important regulatory activity than the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act had imagined. Rulemaking was barely touched on when I began teaching administrative law in 1971; it dominates my teaching today. Then, it was seen simply as an expert process, that public participation could help to inform. As its political character became more evident, a series of judicial innovations substantially increased its transparency. They required agencies to share important data when they proposed rules for public comment; and they demanded that agencies show substantial reasoning in support of the rules they finally adopted, reasoning that reflected attention to the important comments they had received. Presidents, too, began demanding involvement, as the heightened importance of this new rulemaking to the American economy became evident. They increasingly sought to influence what regulations agencies were undertaking to develop; and they developed procedures for monitoring the development of important rules to assure, at the least, that they promised public benefits that would justify the costs they might impose on the businesses they regulated. The heightened capacity for information-sharing resulting from the digital age, too, has tended effectively to move important decisions to the White House from the agencies Congress designated to make them.
President Trump's attachment to personal control and dramatic action has been evident across the whole of his administration. This is evident in his attention to the business of the Department of Homeland Security − both in controlling the nation's borders against unwanted arrivals, and in dealing with residents who illegally crossed them in the past. His use of social media, his executive orders, and his dealings with DHS and White House personnel in this connection strikingly illustrate these elements. Professor Strauss's talk will also consider more generally the ways in which through social media, executive orders, and appointments decisions, President Trump has further developed presidential controls over agency rulemaking. Judicial controls, such as Judge Robart's important decision in Washington v. Trump, may serve to check his overreaching; Congress, to this point, has not done so (although the rebirth of divided government last November might change this). Otherwise, Americans must await the fixed election of November 2020, which might or might not have that effect.

14:50〜15:30
入国禁止令と司法審査
大林啓吾
入国禁止令をめぐる問題は法の支配にいくつかの課題を突き付けた。もっとも深刻に受け止められているのが法の支配に対する挑戦であり、入国禁止令は憲法および法律に適合しているかどうかという問題を惹起している。他面、入国禁止令の狙いが合法移民だけの状況を創り出すことにあるとすれば、それはある意味法の支配の実現を目指しているようにも見える。すなわち、この問題には法の支配と法の支配の衝突が潜んでいる可能性もあるのである。さらにこの問題は、大統領の行為の合憲性・合法性を客観的に問うだけでなく、そこに差別的意図があったか否かも問題になることからその主観をも対象とする余地があり、法的統制のあり方という点においても厄介な問題をはらんでいる。かかる問題群から見えてくるのは、司法はどこまで法の支配を実現できるのか、換言すればどこまで司法審査が可能なのかという課題である。
本報告では、入国禁止令の問題が提起する憲法問題につき、執行権、司法権、人権の各論点を取り上げながら司法審査の可否やあり方を検討し、最後に日米比較のレンズを通してこの問題の核心に迫る。

15:30〜15:45 休憩

15:45〜16:15
難民移民の取扱い及び収容 〜 2015年以降の欧州と日米
新津久美子
難民移民問題に積極的であり続けた欧州にあっても，テロへの恐怖と異なる文化や宗教への懸念は絶えない。特に，2015 年に爆発的に難民が発生した後の欧州は，以前ほど単純な形での受入れは最早行ってはいない。シリア情勢悪化等を背景に，EU加盟国間の利害や思惑の違いが鮮明化，一部加盟国の国内情勢に大きな影響を与えている。また，難民移民の流入後，域内での二次的な移動をどのように受け入れるかが各国の大きな政治的関心事となっている。人道的な価値が重視されてきた欧州ではあるが一部ポピュリズムも跋扈し，現在は微妙なバランスの元にある。一方，欧州機関や欧州人権裁判所は，世界を牽引するような規定や判決が存在し，その意思決定は常に関心を持たれる。
本報告では，主に欧州のイスラム系諸国出身者を含む移民・難民及び申請者の取扱いや収容実態に言及しながら，「ダブリン規則」や「欧州理事会」及び「欧州人権裁判所」での措置や法制度の動向を紹介する。その上で，トラベル・バンからの示唆として，アメリカや日本との比較を行い，日本の法律家として世界的な秩序の形成にどう貢献できるかの問題提起としたい。

16:15〜16:45
航空実務からみたトラベル・バン　　
大沼俊之　
金山藍子
2017年1月のトラベル・バンは、トランプ大統領の就任を象徴する出来事として、広く世間の注目を集めることとなったが、入国必要書類の不備の責は搭乗予定者本人が負うべきこと、入国を認められない者の送還の責は航空会社が負うべきこと、入国の可否の判断は、相互主義の大原則の下、当該国（この場合には米国）の判断に委ねられるべきものであることが了知されたのち、我が国がトラベル・バン対象国ではない事実もあいまって、世間の議論・関心は沈静化するに至った。一方で、入国可否の判断、大統領令の対象が短期間で二転三転し、また米国内の各裁判所で異なる判断が下される事態は、いかにも米国の行政・司法制度の特徴を体現しているともいえ、当初、これに必ずしも明るくない日本（あるいは各国）の実務関係者が振り回された感も否めない。多面的検討の一環、いわばトラベル・バンをめぐる学術的な論点の考察の事前動作として、本件にかかる航空実務からの視点を提示する。