SCOTUS Agrees Trump Can Revoke Temporary Legal Status Of 500K Foreign Nationals (For Now)
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to temporarily halt a lower court judge’s efforts to stop the Trump administration from revoking the temporary protected status of more than 500,000 foreign nationals residing in the United States.
In a 7-2 ruling, the nation’s highest court granted a request from the federal government to place a temporary stay on a district court ruling blocking the administration from terminating the legal status of approximately 530,000 foreign nationals allowed into the U.S. under the Biden-era CHNV parole program. According to Fox News, these noncitizens and their immediate family members originate from “Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.”
“The program was temporarily paused after widespread fraud was found. Several recipients were also arrested for high-profile crimes, including multiple child rapes,” the outlet reported.
The Trump administration’s move to end the program faced opposition from Massachusetts-based District Court Judge Indira Talwani. The Obama appointee issued an injunction attempting to stop such efforts in April.
Prior to becoming a judge, Talwani collectively donated hundreds of dollars to the campaigns of President Barack Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., the latter of whom recommended her to Obama for appointment to the federal bench.
According to Friday’s order, the temporary stay on the lower court injunction will remain in place “pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” The stay will terminate if a potential petition from the government to SCOTUS is denied by the high court or if SCOTUS agrees to consider the matter and hands down a judgement in the case.
Associate Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the Trump administration’s request for stay.
In her dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor joined, Jackson claimed that the high court’s majority “plainly botched” the “factors” SCOTUS uses when considering “whether or not to stay a lower court’s order.” Specifically, the junior justice contended that the majority “requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm” and “undervalues 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.”
“Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits, in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory. I would have denied the Government’s application because its harm-related showing is patently insufficient,” Jackson wrote. “The balance of the equities also weighs heavily in respondents’ favor. While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize — not maximize — harm to litigating parties.”
As indicated in the order, the merits of the case will now be considered by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.