美國聯邦法上暫時禁制令之標準及界限

美國法上有多種救濟方式，其中來自衡平法、歷史淵源悠久之禁制令（injunction）制度，扮演重要角色。禁制令不僅頻繁見於司法實務，近年相關爭議亦足夠重大，讓美國聯邦最高法院曾數度表示見解。本文以美國聯邦法暫時禁制令（interlocutory injunction）為中心，分別探究其程序、實體審查標準，及適用上界限，希望能補充此領域中比較法研究之欠缺。　　暫時禁制令又包含初步禁制令（preliminary injunction）及緊急限制令（temporary restriction order）兩種子類型。程序規範方面，兩者在效力期間、事前通知之必要性及救濟可能性等等，皆有差別。實體審查標準上，藉由分析聯邦最高法院近期重要案例以及後續聯邦巡迴上訴法院之解讀，可知現今美國暫時禁制令之實體審查標準，並不存在一體適用之共通見解。並且，此種異中求同之現狀，短期內似乎不會產生變化。　　至於暫時禁制令之適用界限，從反禁制令法之制定，到全國禁制令之興起，顯示聯邦司法實務愈來愈常透過禁制令干預行政權之施政。縱使法院決定大多僅有暫時性效力，此種情形毋寧仍挑戰了傳統充分原則，即視禁制令屬例外救濟之觀念；甚至亦有違反權力分立原則之虞。文末並將綜合研究所得，省思美國暫時禁制令制度之運作，能給予我國暫時權利保護法制哪些啟示。

關鍵字

暫時禁制令；初步禁制令；緊急限制令；實體審查標準；全國禁制令

並列摘要

Injunctions play an important role among judicial equitable remedies in American law. Nowadays, injunctions are frequently used in the federal courts, while the U. S. Supreme Court has also addressed relevant issues several times. This thesis explores the interlocutory injunction, including its procedures, standards and limitations. Interlocutory injunction can be divided into two types: preliminary injunction and temporary restriction order, which are different in many ways. For instance, the orders’ duration, the necessity of giving notice in advance, the possibility of appeal, and so forth. After analyzing Supreme Courts’ recent cases and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuits’ interpretations, the thesis finds out that a uniform federal standard is still nonexistent. Moreover, the situation doesn’t seem to change in the near future. Regarding the limitations on interlocutory injunctions, from Anti-Injunction Acts to the rise of nationwide injunctions, indicates that federal courts are more likely to issue injunctions to invalidate federal government policies. Such circumstances might conflict with the traditional adequacy doctrine, or even separation of powers principles. Finally, this thesis reviews how interlocutory injunctions are utilized in the federal courts, attempting to shed some light on temporary right protection mechanism in Taiwan.