Judge blocks Trump's early termination of temporary protections for Haitian immigrants
The ruling Friday from U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan preserves, for now, the Biden administration's 2024 extension of the protections, known as 'temporary protected status,' for up to 500,000 Haitians living in the United States.
Cogan's 23-page decision is the latest legal development in the administration's efforts to roll back TPS designations and other immigration programs that allow immigrants from countries facing humanitarian crises to live and work here legally. In a separate case, the Supreme Court in May lifted a lower-court ruling and allowed the administration to revoke a Biden-era TPS designation for about 350,000 Venezuelans.
Cogan's decision came just four days after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that the TPS designation for Haitians would expire effective on Sept. 2. Under the Biden administration's extension, the designation was scheduled to expire on Feb. 3, 2026.
Cogan, an appointee of President George W. Bush, held that Noem's termination was unlawful because the government ignored provisions in the TPS statute that seek to provide early notice to recipients, including barring termination until a previous extension expires.
The judge noted that Haitian TPS recipients have enrolled in schools, taken jobs and began medical treatment in reliance on the U.S. government's previous representations about the duration of the protections.
'When the Government confers a benefit over a fixed period of time, a beneficiary can reasonably expect to receive that benefit at least until the end of that fixed period,' Cogan wrote.
'Secretary Noem cannot reconsider Haiti's TPS designation in a way that takes effect before February 3, 2026,' the judge added.
TPS designations are based on conditions in a particular country, including whether there is armed conflict, civil strife or widespread human rights violations. Noem said the 'environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home.' The State Department, meanwhile, advises Americans to 'not travel to Haiti due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care.'
The Trump administration has sought to revoke immigration parole programs and protected status for more than a million people from countries including Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cameroon and Afghanistan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The state pension age could rise even higher. Here's what the experts think
How would the government make up that gap between people leaving the workforce and receiving their state pension? The government could be paving the way to increase the state pension age to 70, according to reports. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) could follow Denmark's example and link life expectancy to the state pension age, with the country already having pushed the age at which citizens can claim their pension up to 70. The potential plans have been raised as the government undertakes a pensions review to determine the state pension age for decades to come. Independent reviewer Dr Suzy Morrissey is leading the consultation, which has to happen every six years under UK law. Currently, the state pension age is already set to rise to 67 from next year and is scheduled to rise again to 68 between 2044 and 2046. Here's what we know about what is being considered - and what the experts think. What is the government considering? The review is looking at automatically adjusting pension ages to reflect life expectancy increases. The justification is that the move would help keep the public finances sustainable and distribute retirement fairly across generations. Countries employing this method also say that by linking pension age to life expectancy, there is a consistent balance between working years and retirement years for each generation. Denmark, Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands already follow this model, with Denmark set to raise the state pension age to 70 in the 2040s. However, there are some vast differences across these nations. Denmark has a more generous, mainly state-financed national pension, but it has significantly higher pension costs. Pensions take up about 17% of gross domestic product (GDP) spending in the country, compared to around 12% in the UK. Additionally, in countries like Finland and the Netherlands, employers pay a larger share of pension contributions than in the UK. Denmark is an exception where the state finances much of the pension. Finland and Sweden also fund part of pensions through dedicated assets, which helps prepare for ageing populations, unlike the UK's largely pay-as-you-go system. Meanwhile, Italy is believed to be struggling as it is known for having a very ageing population and relatively high pension spending, according to an international pension systems report. Difficult to justify? When analysing the benefits and drawbacks of linking state pension age to life expectancy, Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown and pension columnist for Yahoo Finance, said that it's clear putting up the state pension age would work in the government's favour. The government currently spends more on the state pension than on any other benefit, accounting for 12.2% of its GDP in 2023. Added to this, the government remains committed to the triple lock, a policy guaranteeing that the state pension will increase each year by the highest of three measures: inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5%. "Pushing up state pension age to 70 would help the government to contain the burgeoning state pension bill," Morrissey told Yahoo News. "Increasing the state pension age could help ease the pressure on public finances, especially given the government remains committed to maintaining the triple lock," Lily Megson-Harvey, policy director at My Pension Expert, told Yahoo News. However, there are a lot of important factors that need to be considered, the expert said – including workers' longevity and health. The health life expectancy index is used to record not just the average life expectancy of a person, but the length of time the average person leads a full and healthy life. According to the latest government figures, this stands at 61.5 for a man, and 61.9 for a woman. "We've seen increases in longevity slow down in the aftermath of the pandemic, and this could make such a large increase difficult to justify," Morrissey said. "As recent data shows this figure is currently around 62 years of age, so the reality is that there are many people who will not be in a position to keep on working into their late sixties and beyond as their health simply won't allow it. "The state pension forms the foundation of many people's retirement income and thought needs to be given as to how to make up that gap between leaving the workforce and receiving their state pension." As the Centre for Ageing Better has highlighted, the main reasons older workers leave or cannot re-enter the workforce are down to health problems and disability. Added to this, many people struggle to find employment later in life. The UK employment rate for people aged 55 to 64 is only 65%, compared with 75–81% in similar European countries, showing that older workers have significantly lower employment rates than younger or middle-aged groups. Older workers are much less likely to be employed than those aged 35 to 49, with the biggest gap in areas like the North East, where there is an almost 20% difference. Morrissey told Yahoo News: "Many people feel overlooked in the job market later in life and this is a huge issue for them personally as well as the job market as a whole. "It is vital that more is done to keep older workers in work for longer so they can pass on their experience and skills while enabling them to continue to build their financial resilience. "We need to see more done to train older workers in new skills as well as the provision of more flexible working practices to enable those who are willing and able to keep working to do so," she added. What about lowering the pension age? Pension reform and age increases have been a long-standing source of controversy. Most recently, the government rejected calls for compensation for Waspi women, who argued they were inadequately informed about the state pension age rise, and either needed to work for additional years or face financial hardship while waiting for their pension. Former shadow cabinet minister Diane Abbott thinks the touted increase is "morally unacceptable", pointing out that almost a third of people never make it to the age of 70. Dr Will Stronge, CEO of the Autonomy Institute, also takes this view. "Raising the state pension age to 70, while intended to preserve fiscal sustainability, risks disproportionately penalising those in poor health, precarious employment or caregiving roles, many of whom cannot continue working until such an advanced age," he told Yahoo News. "It would exacerbate existing inequalities, especially among women, low‑income groups, and those with interrupted work histories who already face inadequate pension coverage. "It also undermines efforts to ensure dignified retirement and social cohesion in an ageing society, shifting burdens onto those least able to bear them." Stronge said that "instead of pushing the age higher", there is a strong case for lowering the pension age. "This is for health, wellbeing and wider care responsibility reasons. At the least, we should focus on reforms that strengthen pension adequacy, encourage fair contributions, and support healthy work-life balance," he added. Megson-Harvey echoes this. "Increasing the state pension age risks deepening inequalities. Many people, especially those in physically demanding jobs or with lower incomes, may struggle to work longer or save enough privately, making them more reliant on the state pension," she said. "This is precisely why long-term pension reform must include access to affordable, personalised financial advice, so that everyone, regardless of income or background, can make informed decisions and adapt their plans with confidence when the rules change." The government declined to comment.
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
President Trump calls for Fed governor to resign after accusation of mortgage fraud
Trump's call for Lisa Cook to resign escalates his attacks on the independent Federal Reserve, which set monetary policy including interest rates. WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump called for the resignation of a Biden-appointed Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, following accusations from his administration that she engaged in mortgage fraud. Trump's new focus on Cook, who former President Joe Biden nominated to the board in 2022, escalates the president's attacks on the independent Federal Reserve, which is governed by a seven-member board to set monetary policy. "Cook must resign, now!!!" Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on the morning of Aug. 20, shortly after Bill Pulte, director of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, publicized a letter referring the Fed governor for criminal proseccution to the Justice Department. More: Trump tussles with Powell during Federal Reserve visit but backs off firing threat Pulte, in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accused Cook of falsifying bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms. He said this included falsifying residence statuses in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta to potentially secure lower interest rates. Cook did not immediately respond to a USA TODAY request for comment on the allegations. Cook, a former economics and international relations professor at Michigan State University, is the first Black woman to ever sit on the Fed's board. Cook previously served as a senior economist on the Council of Economic Advisers in former President Barack Obama's White House. For months, Trump has railed against Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell over the Fed's unwillingness to lower interest rates as Trump has demanded, calling the chairman a "numbskull,' 'stupid person' and 'too late.' Powell has cited inflationary concerns from Trump's robust tariff regime in keeping interest rates steady. More: Trump considering lawsuit against Fed as he bashes Chair Jerome Powell Despite publicly weighing the idea of firing Powell, Trump has instead said he will wait to replace him when the chairman's term ends in 2026. Experts say the president can only remove a Fed chair for cause. Trump has also discussed possible criminal charges against Powell ‒ and perhaps suing Powell ‒ over the ballooning budget in a $2.5 billion renovation of the agency's Washington, DC headquarters. The Federal Open Market Committee, which sets interest rates, is a 12-member panel composed of the seven governors on the Fed board and five Reserve Bank presidents. Two Republican members of the FOMC Committee in July voted to lower interest rates, marking the first time since 1993 that two governors have dissented from a Fed decision. To fill an earlier vacancy on the Fed's board of governors, Trump on Aug. 7 nominated Stephen Miran, who chairs the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. If confirmed by the Sebate, Miran would replace Fed Governor Adriana Kugler, who resigned on Aug. 1 before her term was set to expire. Contributing: Bailey Schulz of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump administration expands ‘good moral character' requirement to become naturalized citizen
Immigration FacebookTweetLink The Trump administration is expanding the requirement for immigrants who are hoping to become US citizens to display 'good moral character,' in a move that some immigration lawyers denounced as a troubling change that adds uncertainty to the naturalization process. US Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that administers the country's legal immigration system, directed its officers in a memo last week to more heavily consider both positive and negative 'attributes or contributions' of people going through the naturalization process to become US citizens. The memo, which was sent to USCIS officers on Friday, requires them to take a more 'holistic approach in evaluating whether or not an alien seeking naturalization has affirmatively established that he or she has met their burden of establishing that they are worthy of assuming the rights and responsibilities of United States Citizenship.' The agency said in a statement that the new policy is intended to ensure its officers are accounting more heavily for an immigrant's positive attributes, rather than simply the 'absence of misconduct,' to reflect their character. 'U.S. citizenship is the gold standard of citizenship—it should only be offered to the world's best of the best,' USCIS spokesperson Matthew J. Tragesser said in a statement. The standard to show good moral character has long been part of the naturalization process in the US. But immigration attorneys told CNN that the memo is designed in a way that places additional burdens on people going through the process. Emily Ryo, a professor of law and sociology at Duke University whose research focuses on immigration, said the 'mandate is likely to introduce a great deal of uncertainty, unpredictability, and administrative burden.' 'What does it mean to require that a noncitizen 'affirmatively' establish that they are 'worthy' of US citizenship?' Ryo said in an email. 'What kind of documentation will noncitizens be required to provide to make this affirmative showing, and how exactly are the officials to weigh and verify such evidence?' Susan Ramos, an immigration attorney based in Arizona, described the policy change as 'troubling' and said it 'appears to effectively change the substantive requirements for naturalization without notice and comment, just by policy.' 'It creates a new subjective standard without providing the analysis that will be performed in adjudicating an application for naturalization,' Ramos said. 'For example, how much volunteer work is enough to tip the scales in favor of the applicant? Who decides that formula, and using what analysis? What will USCIS consider sufficient achievement for someone who doesn't work?' And because the directive is broadly written, it makes it more difficult to challenge an individual officer's decision on whether the character standard has been met, said Kathrin Mautino, a California-based immigration attorney. 'Generally, it will give individual officers more authority to ask about private lives,' Mautino said. But the memo does contain some more concrete and stringent requirements for potential new citizens. Previously, immigrants who owed overdue taxes were required to only show they were participating in a payment plan with the IRS to meet the character standard, Mautino said. But the new memo now requires the 'full payment' of overdue taxes, as well as other obligations including child-support payments. USCIS said in the memo this is to make sure immigrants 'who have engaged in wrongdoing are properly rehabilitated and reformed.' People who have multiple traffic tickets can now be found to lack good moral character, as well as people who engage in 'harassment or aggressive solicitation,' though it is not clear what the memo means by that. The updated policy is just one way the Trump administration is more heavily scrutinizing the lives of people applying for citizenship or for the right to live, work or study in the United States. In late May, the US State Department ordered embassies to pause visa interviews for international students so they could more heavily scrutinize students' social media. The pause was lifted after the State Department told embassies to screen for 'hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.' On Tuesday, USCIS announced that type of vetting will expand to seek out 'anti-American' attitudes in those seeking immigration-related benefits such as the right to live or work in the US.
