Category

Category: Politics

Politics

Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/trpnQWcR3IaW-B2GuuhHwXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand" title="Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand"> <p>Lawyers for a group of Venezuelan nationals urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to keep in place a ruling by a federal judge in San Francisco that prohibits Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem from ending their designation under a special immigration program giving them temporary protection from deportation. </p> <p>Granting the government’s request and putting the order by Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on hold “would radically shift the status quo,” <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1059/358400/20250508162539890_2025.05.08%20NTPSA%20-%20SCOTUS%20-%20Opposition%20to%20Stay.pdf">wrote Ahilan Arulanantham</a>, a UCLA law professor representing the Venezuelan citizens. It would mean that “nearly 350,000 people would immediately lose the right to live and work in this country,” Arulanantham emphasized.</p> <span id="more-505844"></span> <p>The plaintiffs in this case are beneficiaries of the Temporary Protected Status program, which allows them to stay in the United States and work. Under federal law, the DHS secretary can designate foreign citizens under the TPS program when she determines that they cannot return safely to their home country because of a natural disaster, armed conflict, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state.” When a country no longer meets those criteria, the law provides, the secretary should terminate the TPS designation. </p> <p>The initial designation of Venezuela under the TPS program was made in 2021, by then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who subsequently extended the program. </p> <p>In February, Noem ended both the TPS designation and efforts to extend it for a particular group of Venezuelan nationals. The plaintiffs in this case then went to federal court in San Francisco, asking Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen to delay Noem’s termination. </p> <p>Chen issued an order on March 31 that prohibited Noem from ending the TPS designation, calling her conduct “unprecedented” and suggesting that the decision to revoke the designation had been based on negative stereotypes about Venezuelan migrants. </p> <p>When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit turned down the government’s request to pause Chen’s ruling while its appeal continued, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene. He emphasized that the TPS program “implicates particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch.” </p> <p>The Venezuelan nationals told the justices that putting Chen’s order on hold “would cause more harm than it would prevent, inflicting massive injury on” them “through lost employment and widespread deportations to an unsafe country.” By contrast, they suggested, the government has not pointed to any “harm it has suffered or will suffer between now and when the Ninth Circuit decides its appeal, which is set for argument on July 16.” Indeed, they noted, the government did not even ask the Supreme Court to step in for “nearly two full weeks after” the 9th Circuit declined to do so. </p> <p>Moreover, the group added, they are likely to win on the merits of their claim – one of the key criteria the justices consider in determining whether to grant temporary relief – because although federal immigration law gives the DHS secretary significant discretion in deciding whether to designate a country for TPS or to redesignate it, she has substantially less discretion once those designations are made, “both as to the timing of the review process and what criteria the Secretary must use in deciding whether to extend or instead terminate TPS protection.” And federal law does not give her any power to vacate or rescind an extension, the plaintiffs emphasized. </p> <p>The Venezuelan nationals’ filing in this case came on the same afternoon that <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A1079/358354/20250508121118618_Kristi_Noem_v_Svitlana_Doe_et_al_%20application_stay.pdf">the Trump administration asked the court</a>to intervene in another immigration dispute, involving a ruling by a federal district judge in Massachusetts that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from revoking the Biden administration’s grant of parole – that is, permission to temporarily stay in the United States for humanitarian or public interest reasons – to more than 500,000 noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/venezuelan-tps-recipients-tell-justices-to-let-status-stand/">Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 4 min read
Read more →
Politics

Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/TVYPwtfZnQaxBO3z6qoqjnn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens" title="Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens"> <p>The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon, once again seeking emergency relief from the justices. This time Solicitor General D. John Sauer, asked the court to pause a ruling by a federal district judge in Massachusetts that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from revoking the Biden administration’s grant of parole – that is, permission to temporarily stay in the United States for humanitarian or public interest reasons – to more than 500,000 noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. </p> <p>Sauer told the justices that the order by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani “has nullified one of the Administration’s most consequential immigration policy decisions,” blocking a decision by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “and maintaining parole for up to two years for 532,000 aliens whose continued presence in the United States the Secretary deems contrary to U.S. interests.” </p> <span id="more-505835"></span> <p>Under federal immigration law, noncitizens who arrive in this country and cannot show that they are entitled to enter normally must either leave the country or stay in immigration custody. However, the DHS secretary also has the discretion to allow immigrants to enter the country and to revoke that permission. </p> <p>During the Biden administration, then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas granted two-year terms of parole to a large group of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The policy, known as the CHNV special-parole programs, rested on the theory that allowing the mass parole of citizens from those countries would deter illegal migration through the U.S.-Mexico border. </p> <p>In March, DHS ended the parole of noncitizens through the CHNV special-parole programs while retaining the discretion to grant parole on a case-by-case basis. It reasoned that the programs had “at best traded an unmanageable population of unlawful migration along the southwest border for the additional complication of a substantial population of aliens in the interior of the United States without a clear path to a durable status.” </p> <p>A group of immigrants who had been admitted to the United States under the special-parole programs went to federal court in Boston to challenge the March 2025 termination of the programs. </p> <p>Talwani barred DHS from ending the special-parole programs without providing case-by-case review of the decision to end parole for noncitizens. Talwani rejected the government’s argument that she did not have the power to review Noem’s decision to end the programs because another provision of federal immigration law prohibits judges from weighing in on such discretionary decisions. Talwani agreed that courts cannot review the DHS secretary’s decision to revoke individual parole determinations. But that ban does not apply, Talwani reasoned, because Noem did not have the power to revoke an entire category’s worth of parole determinations, and therefore she did not have any discretion to exercise. </p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to put Talwani’s order on hold, prompting the government to come to the Supreme Court on Thursday. </p> <p>Sauer contended that Talwani’s order “creates a perverse one-way rachet”: Although Mayorkas “granted CHNV parole categorically,” the order “faulted only Secretary Noem’s decision to <em>restore</em> the traditional case-by-case process by undoing the prior categorical grant of CHNV parole. The INA, however, prescribes the exact opposite.” As a result, he wrote, the government would be required to make “individualized parole determinations for every one of the 532,000 parolees under the CHNV programs—a colossal undertaking.” </p> <p>The court instructed lawyers for the immigrants to file their response by 4 p.m. on Thursday, May 15. </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/government-asks-justices-to-allow-dhs-to-revoke-parole-for-a-half-million-noncitizens/">Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 3 min read
Read more →
Politics

The morning read for Thursday, May 8

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/UFyT_DgSkZ4ga3yriwnKmHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Thursday, May 8" title="The morning read for Thursday, May 8"> <p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/07/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-trump/83494003007/">Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile</a> (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)</li> <li><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-sends-new-message-trump-2069405">Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Sends New Message to Trump</a> (Anna Commander, Newsweek)</li> <li><a href="https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/05/08/one-of-the-most-controversial-executive-orders-will-shortly-land-at-scotus">One of the most controversial executive orders will shortly land at SCOTUS</a> (The Economist) </li> <li><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/07/supreme-court-cameras-cspan-00333293">C-SPAN asks the Supreme Court to televise arguments for Trump’s birthright citizenship case</a> (Amanda Friedman, Politico) </li> <li><a href="https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-universal-injunction-cases-part">The Universal Injunction Cases, Part 1: The Origins Debate</a> (Samuel Bray, Divided Argument) </li> </ul> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/the-morning-read-for-friday-may-2-2-2-2-2/">The morning read for Thursday, May 8</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →