Category

Category: Politics

Politics

Supreme Court allows DHS to end parole for a half-million noncitizens

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/ZBjsNB4v5qcyOB_7XoZZG3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court allows DHS to end parole for a half-million noncitizens" title="Supreme Court allows DHS to end parole for a half-million noncitizens"> <p>The Supreme Court on Friday morning cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke the Biden administration’s grant of parole – that is, permission to stay in the United States for humanitarian or public interest reasons – to more than 500,000 noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1079_p86b.pdf">a brief unsigned order</a>, the justices paused a ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that had temporarily barred the federal government from implementing the decision by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem while a challenge to it moves forward. </p> <span id="more-528457"></span> <p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from Friday’s order, in an eight-page opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She wrote that her colleagues had “plainly botched” their ruling today, and she decried the “devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.” </p> <p>When noncitizens arrive in the United States, they must show that they are entitled to be here. If they cannot do so, they generally must either remain in the custody of immigration authorities or leave the country. But federal immigration law also gives the DHS secretary the power to give them parole, as well as the discretion to revoke that parole.</p> <p>The dispute stems from Noem’s March 25 decision to terminate the parole of a large group of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, known as the CHNV special-parole programs. Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary during the Biden administration, had granted these immigrants parole (and then extended it) in the hope that doing so would deter illegal migration through the U.S. border with Mexico. Under the program, noncitizens who passed a background check and had a sponsor in the United States who agreed to provide support could receive prior permission to travel to the United States and request parole. </p> <p>Shortly after his second inauguration, however, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing the DHS secretary to end all “categorical parole programs,” including the CHNV programs. Noem did so on March 25 in a notice in the Federal Register that explained that the programs “have 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 noncitizens who had been admitted to the United States under the CHNV programs filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, seeking to challenge DHS’s March 2025 termination of the programs. </p> <p>In an order on April 14, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani barred DHS from terminating the CHNV programs without providing a case-by-case review of the decision to end parole for noncitizens who had benefited from the programs. And although she agreed with the federal government that courts cannot review the DHS secretary’s decision to revoke individual parole determinations, Talwani ruled that such a bar does not apply to this case because Noem did not have the authority to revoke an entire category’s worth of parole determinations. </p> <p>After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit rejected DHS’s request to put Talwani’s order on hold, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/noem-v-doe/">the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court</a>, asking the justices to intervene.</p> <p>U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that Talwani’s order had “nullified one of the Administration’s most consequential immigration policy decisions.” And it had created, he added, a “perverse one-way rachet” by finding fault only with Noem’s “decision to restore the traditional case-by-case process by undoing the prior categorical grant of CHNV parole.” Federal immigration law, he contended, “prescribes the exact opposite.” </p> <p>The noncitizens urged the justices to stay out of the dispute, telling the court that the federal government was seeking permission, through the court’s emergency docket, “to execute the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.” All of the noncitizens, they stressed, had “followed the law and were individually approved to enter the United States on a case-by-case basis”; categorically terminating the programs now would permanently harm them not only them but also their “employers and communities.” By contrast, they observed, the government has not pointed to any concrete harm from allowing Talwani’s order to remain in place – instead asserting only that her order “thwarts the Government’s policy goals and contravenes its interest in expeditiously removing CHNV parole beneficiaries.” But in any event, they added, the government can still remove any individual noncitizen whom it deems inadmissible; it simply needs to do so on a case-by-case basis. </p> <p>Two weeks after the briefing in the case was complete, and 11 days after <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/noem-v-national-tps-alliance/">the court allowed the Trump administration to end protected status</a> for a different group of Venezuelan nationals, a majority of the court granted the Trump administration’s request. It put Talwani’s order on hold while the appeal moves forward in the 1st Circuit and, if necessary, in the Supreme Court. As is common for cases on the court’s emergency docket, the court did not provide an explanation for its decision. </p> <p>In her dissent, Jackson emphasized that the decision to pause a lower court’s order “does not reflect a back-of-the-napkin assessment of which party has the better legal argument.” Instead, she wrote, the determination rests on whether it is necessary to prevent permanent harm to either the parties or the public while the litigation moves forward. </p> <p>In this case, Jackson continued, the Trump administration has failed to show that it will be permanently injured if it cannot end the grant of parole now, rather than waiting until the dispute is resolved. This is particularly important, Jackson observed, when the court of appeals has agreed to fast-track its consideration of the Trump administration’s appeal. </p> <p>Meanwhile, according to Jackson , the noncitizens at the center of this dispute do face “significant problems” that “far exceed” any injury to the government. Many of them, she noted, “arrived here (at the invitation of the U.S. Government) because their home countries were afflicted by strife or they were otherwise subject to unsafe living or working conditions.” They “have sponsors here and, in many cases, have integrated into American neighborhoods and communities in the hope of eventually securing long-term legal status.” “No one disputes,” she concluded, “that social and economic chaos will ensue if that many noncitizen parolees are suddenly and summarily” removed from the country. </p> <p>Even if the Trump administration can ultimately end parole, Jackson explained, she would first allow the federal courts to resolve that “highly consequential legal issue.” “Instead,” she lamented, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to “do what it wants regardless, rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation in the process.” </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/supreme-court-allows-dhs-to-end-parole-for-a-half-million-noncitizens/">Supreme Court allows DHS to end parole for a half-million noncitizens</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 6 min read
Read more →
Politics

Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review 

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/VI8Twb0pEws_Z69G-AZG1nn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review " title="Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review "> <p>The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf">unanimously ruled</a> to limit the scope of environmental review required under a seminal 1970s environmental protection law. The move brought a proposed 88-mile railroad line that would transport crude oil from oilfields in northern Utah to refineries on the Gulf Coast one step closer to production. Environmental groups and a neighboring Colorado county had told the justices that the federal agency that approved the project had failed to consider its broader environmental costs. </p> <span id="more-528882"></span> <p>In ruling for the railroad, the justices sketched out a relatively narrow role for courts reviewing future decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act, the landmark environmental law at the center of the case. Emphasizing that the “goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it,” Justice Brett Kavanagh explained that courts should give “substantial deference” to the agency’s determination as to what should be included in the environmental impact statement prepared for a project. “In deciding cases involving the American economy,” Kavanaugh concluded, “courts should strive, where possible, for clarity and predictability.” </p> <p>The court’s three Democratic appointees agreed more narrowly with the result that their colleagues reached, even if they did not agree with the reasoning that they used to arrive at that conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the majority “unnecessarily ground[ed] its analysis largely in matters of policy,” but the board, based on the statute itself, did not have the power to reject the application to build the railroad based on any negative effects that might flow from products carried on the railway. </p> <p>The dispute before the court began after the U.S. Surface Transportation Board approved a proposal by a group of Utah counties to build a railroad line that would connect with the broader interstate freight rail network to “facilitate the transportation of crude oil” from the state’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to refineries in states like Louisiana and Texas. The proposed train would quadruple production at Utah’s largest oil and gas fields. In August 2021, the board released an environmental impact statement that was more than 3,600 pages long and addressed the environmental consequences of the project. In approving the project in December of that year, the board explained that the project’s “substantial transportation and economic benefits” outweighed those environmental effects.</p> <p>Several environmental groups and Eagle County, Colorado, challenged the board’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court threw out the board’s order approving the project. It reasoned that the board should have taken a “hard look” at all of the railroad’s environmental effects. This would include, the court of appeals said, both the “upstream” effects – effects from oil drilling in the basin – and the “downstream” effects – effects from oil refining along the Gulf Coast.</p> <p>On Thursday the Supreme Court reversed. Kavanaugh explained that although NEPA requires agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement “identifying significant environmental effects of the projects, as well as feasible alternatives,” the law at its core “is purely procedural.” In reaching its decision about whether a project should go forward, he wrote, “an ‘agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.’” </p> <p>When courts are reviewing these determinations, Kavanaugh continued, “the central principle” is “deference.” Kavanaugh acknowledged that since last year’s decision in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo</a></em>, courts generally do not provide deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, instead taking a fresh look at the law. “But when” – as in this situation – “an agency exercises discretion granted by a statute,” Kavanaugh wrote, courts instead look at whether the agency action “was reasonable and reasonably explained.” In NEPA cases, he stated, “an agency’s only obligation is to prepare an adequate report.” </p> <p>Kavanaugh spelled out the limits on the role of the courts even more clearly, stressing that “it is critical to disaggregate the agency’s role from the court’s role. So long as the EIS addresses environmental effects from the project at issue,” he wrote, “courts should defer to agencies’ decisions about where to draw the line—including (i) how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and (ii) whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place from the project at hand.” </p> <p>Kavanaugh also criticized courts that have in the past, in his view, not provided the kind of deference that NEPA requires. In doing so, he suggested, those courts “have slowed down or blocked many projects and, in turn, caused litigation-averse agencies to take ever more time and to prepare even longer EISs for future projects.” And as a result, he concluded, “NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects.” </p> <p>The effects of that transformation, Kavanaugh explained, are significant. “Fewer projects make it to the finish line” or even “the starting line,” he stated – and the ones that do make it are more expensive. “A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak,” he said, “that has hindered infrastructure development ‘under the guise’ of just a little more process.” </p> <p>The D.C. Circuit’s ruling was also wrong, Kavanaugh added, because the board was not required to address the environmental effects of “projects that are separate in time or place from the” railroad itself. Indeed, Kavanaugh observed, “those separate projects fall outside the Board’s authority and would be initiated, if at all, by” other parties. </p> <p>In an 11-page opinion, Sotomayor faulted the majority for relying on policy considerations but explained that the board did not have the power to reject railroad applications based on the ways that other entities would use the products carried on the proposed railroad. As a result, she reasoned, the board could not have rejected the Utah counties’ request based on a desire to “prevent the harmful effects of oil drilling and refining.” Therefore, she concluded, she agreed with her colleagues’ decision to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s ruling “requiring the Board to consider in further detail harms caused by the oil industry.” </p> <p>Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused from the case. A <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-975/333350/20241204161910549_Letter%20from%20the%20Clerk%20in%20No.%2023-975.pdf">Dec. 4 letter</a> from Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court, indicated only that Gorsuch was not participating “consistent with the Code of Conduct” <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf">adopted by the justices in 2023</a>. However, Gorsuch has long had close ties with Philip Anschutz, a billionaire with investments in the energy sector, including a company that filed a “friend of the court” brief in this case. </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-environmental-review/">Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review </a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 6 min read
Read more →
General

INEC Fixes June 20, August 8, 2026 for Ekiti, Osun Governorship Elections

<p>INEC fixes Ekiti and Osun governorship elections for June 20 and August 8, 2026, with timelines for primaries.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.arise.tv/inec-fixes-june-20-august-8-2026-for-ekiti-osun-governorship-elections/">INEC Fixes June 20, August 8, 2026 for Ekiti, Osun Governorship Elections</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.arise.tv">Arise News</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 3 min read
Read more →
Politics

The morning read for Friday, May 30

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/MOrB8Pr5AlYhGeGScpSLpnn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Friday, May 30" title="The morning read for Friday, May 30"> <p>Yesterday, May 29, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/seven-county-infrastructure-coalition-v-eagle-county-colorado/"><em>Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County</em></a>.</p> <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.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/05/29/trump-tariffs-court-defeat-00374194">The Supreme Court May Not Step in and Save Trump’s Tariffs</a> (Ankush Khardori, Politico) </li> <li><a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/supreme-court-nepa-utah-railroad-environment-surface-transportation-board-brett-kavanaugh-5e937532?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAhYiJmXp3MLJ0eJMwyLTZzO09qB6KCVQH9Fkdlzye8sj6usPkak8BnZp_9o6sY%3D&gaa_ts=6838dbc5&gaa_sig=llXQloyVjisnr2YR6pEfQwsdEzkgXj2JrK9eke3wKEBYqh-lgMAet2uUYqKskInSW-9zhCL6LPBpNlDyPJOmOw%3D%3D">The Supreme Court Gives Permission to Build Under NEPA</a> (The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal)</li> <li><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/national-environmental-policy-act-nepa">‘Devastating Loss for Our Wild Places’: Supreme Court Attacks Bedrock Environmental Law</a> (Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams) </li> <li><a href="https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-pardon-spree-supreme-court-rcna209770">SCOTUS effectively pardoned Trump. Now he wants to extend that same immunity to others.</a>(Chris Hayes, MSNBC) </li> <li><a href="https://www.confirmationtales.com/p/old-paths-to-the-supreme-court">Old Paths to the Supreme Court</a> (Ed Whalen, Confirmation Tales) </li> </ul> <p></p> <p></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/the-morning-read-for-friday-may-30/">The morning read for Friday, May 30</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →