logo
News Of Haitian TPS, Travel Ban & Supreme Court Order Stun Immigrants

News Of Haitian TPS, Travel Ban & Supreme Court Order Stun Immigrants

Forbesa day ago
HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 07: Supporters of immigrants' rights protest against U.S. President ... More Donald Trump's immigration policies on February 07, 2025 in Homestead, Florida. President Trump has directed agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. (Photo by)
News of three U.S. immigration-related developments recently surprised immigrants and immigration advocates. The cancellation of Haitian Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands, the revival of a broad travel ban targeting 19 countries (including eight Muslim-majority nations), and a quiet yet significant victory at the Supreme Court limiting the power of federal judges to block unconstitutional executive actions nationwide were momentous decisions with wide-ranging consequences for the United States. Each action raises serious legal and moral concerns. Collectively, they indicate a dangerous mix of policy overreach, discriminatory motives, and the weakening of judicial protections that could affect not only this government but future ones—Democratic or Republican.
TPS Terminations: Focusing on the Most Vulnerable
In late June, the Trump administration announced its plan to end TPS for about 430,000 Haitians, effective September 2, 2025. At first glance, the figure seems shocking—but it hides even a much harsher reality. Nearly half of these individuals, around 200,000, have already been deported through previous measures: Title 42 expulsions, humanitarian parole terminations, and strict border interceptions.
TPS, a humanitarian provision embedded in U.S. immigration law, offers legal residence and work authorization for individuals fleeing natural disasters, conflict, or extraordinary conditions in their home countries. It is not a loophole. It is a lawful status granted and extended by successive administrations of both parties in recognition of humanitarian necessity.
Revoking this protection on a large scale, especially when around 1.75 million immigrants from various countries currently in the United States could be affected by such actions, not only upsets lives and families but also breaches the trust in the rule of law. TPS holders are not undocumented immigrants. They entered legally or were granted lawful residence due to circumstances beyond their control. Their removal does not serve a mandate to deport 'illegal immigrants,' but instead shows a preference for politically convenient targets. In Trump's zeal to meet his goal of 'deporting 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally,' he is deporting legal immigrants.
Worse still, the administration seems to be skipping necessary legal procedures. Before TPS can be revoked, the Department of Homeland Security must properly review country conditions, consult with other federal agencies, issue a 60-day notice, and offer a wind-down period of 6–18 months. These protections are in place to prevent deportations from returning individuals to danger. The courts might still step in, as they did in Ramos v. Nielsen, when a lower court found that the Trump administration's previous TPS cancellations were discriminatory and biased.
The administration's new attack on TPS might follow a similar path—litigation, injunctions, appeals. But for thousands of Haitians, the uncertainty is already traumatic.
The Travel Ban Revisited: Familiar Faces, Persistent Bias
Adding to the TPS decision is the Trump administration's reimposition of a travel ban, now expanded to include 19 countries, eight of which are majority-Muslim. Though presented as a national security measure, the origins and focus of the policy resemble the earlier 'Muslim Ban' that was partially struck down by courts and widely condemned as discriminatory.
This recent iteration does little to ease those concerns. The list of affected countries remains unclear, the criteria are random, and the process lacks transparency or meaningful oversight by Congress. Entire families—spouses, children, students—are now denied entry, regardless of their personal history, reason for travel, or connections to the U.S.
These bans do not improve national security. They alienate allies, harm economies, and increase xenophobia. Even more, they weaken the core Canadian promise: that people are judged by their deeds and character, not their nationality or religion.
Supreme Court's Injunction Ruling: A Win for Executive Authority
Perhaps the most far-reaching—and least noticed—development is the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Casa case, which significantly narrows the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.​ The case originated from Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship. The constitutional issue—whether the 14th Amendment protects the citizenship rights of all U.S.-born children—was avoided by the Court, which instead chose to focus on procedural matters. In doing so, the Court determined that federal judges can no longer routinely issue injunctions that block presidential actions nationwide.
This decision, while cloaked in administrative reasoning, has explosive implications.
Historically, nationwide injunctions have been one of the few effective tools to limit executive overreach. When a federal court uncovers credible evidence of constitutional violations—such as family separations, discriminatory bans, or revocation of legal status—it must be able to halt the action consistently. The alternative is chaos: legal rights that vary depending on the region, with one federal district upholding citizenship and another not.
The criteria for these injunctions are strict:
These are not impulsive decisions. They are rooted in law, precedent, and thorough judicial review. Removing courts' authority in this area creates a fragmented legal system, causes delays in justice, and exposes vulnerable groups to lasting harm while appellate review processes unfold slowly.
While conservatives may celebrate the ruling as a victory over 'judicial activism,' they might soon regret it. Future Democratic governments could now implement sweeping directives—on guns, climate, or abortion access—without fearing immediate nationwide injunctions. Judicial restraint, once a safeguard against tyranny, has now been selectively weakened.
Checks, Balances, and Consequences
The Trump administration's recent immigration developments are not just isolated mistakes. They reflect a deliberate plan: to push the boundaries of executive power, sideline the courts, and change immigration law by decree rather than through legislation.
In each of the three ​instances—TPS cancellation, the travel ban, and the limitation on nationwide injunctions—the pattern remains consistent. Lawful immigrants and minorities are targeted. Established legal procedures are ignored or weakened. And judicial oversight is reduced or compromised.
The Constitution envisions a balance of powers — not an unchecked presidency. When courts can no longer act quickly to stop illegal or discriminatory acts, it is not only immigrants who suffer but also the integrity of the law itself.
The cancellation of the Haitian PTS program, the introduction of a broad travel ban, and the Supreme Court's decision to limit nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts should concern all Americans—regardless of political affiliation. Today, it affects Haitian families and Muslim travellers who face the consequences. Tomorrow, it could be any group that falls out of political favour. The real question is not whether Trump's actions were lawful but whether they were right—and whether future leaders will feel unjustly constrained by them.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democrats frustrated over lack of a heads-up from Hakeem Jeffries on delaying Trump's spending bill
Democrats frustrated over lack of a heads-up from Hakeem Jeffries on delaying Trump's spending bill

Fox News

time25 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Democrats frustrated over lack of a heads-up from Hakeem Jeffries on delaying Trump's spending bill

Democrats were flustered that they didn't get a heads-up that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would delay President Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" on Thursday with an hours-long speech on the House floor. "No one is upset Hakeem wanted to do this, but to not tell members, 'be prepared, book multiple flights, be flexible,'" a House Democrat told Axios, who was reportedly upset about the challenge of rebooking flights so close to the Fourth of July. Another House Democrat told Axios that a "heads up would have been nice." On Thursday afternoon, Jeffries beat the record for a House floor speech, speaking for eight hours and 44 minutes, starting before 4 a.m. and ending around 1:30 p.m. Jeffries went over the record previously held by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., which was eight hours and 32 minutes. During his remarks, the minority leader read from a binder that he said had stories of people who could lose their Medicaid coverage under Trump's spending bill that were compiled from constituents of states that have Republican lawmakers. "I think it's important for the American people to process… SNAP on average provides $6 per day," Jeffries said. "At the same time, Elon Musk, his federal contracts, as we understand it, amount to $8 million per day. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were really serious about targeting waste, fraud and abuse in the United States of America, start there – $8 million per day, start right there." Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill," which passed the House on Thursday afternoon after Jeffries yielded the floor and now awaits the president's signature, advances his border security measures and permanently extends the income tax brackets lowered by his 2017 Tax Cuts Jobs Act (TCJA).

Judges are still broadly blocking Trump policies despite the Supreme Court's injunction ruling
Judges are still broadly blocking Trump policies despite the Supreme Court's injunction ruling

Politico

time26 minutes ago

  • Politico

Judges are still broadly blocking Trump policies despite the Supreme Court's injunction ruling

Moss, an Obama appointee, emphasized that his decision was not one of the now-verboten injunctions. Instead, it relied on two alternative routes the Supreme Court acknowledged remained available for those challenging Trump's policies: class actions, which allow large groups to band together and sue over a common problem, and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that permits courts to 'set aside' federal agency actions that violate the law, including rules, regulations and memos laying out new procedures. The ruling by Moss drew intense outrage from the Trump administration, which accused the judge of going 'rogue' and violating the Supreme Court's intentions. Hours later, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ordered federal health officials to restore hundreds of web pages containing gender-related data that officials took down pursuant to a Trump executive order cracking down on 'gender ideology.' He described the move as an example of federal officials 'acting first and thinking later.' Despite the nationwide implications of his ruling, Bates emphasized that the APA allows courts to effectively undo unjustified agency action, adding that even the Justice Department did 'not argue that more tailored relief is even possible here, let alone appropriate.' The judge also left open the possibility that officials could go back to the drawing board and find a lawful way to restrict content related to so-called 'gender ideology.' And in Massachusetts, Reagan-appointed U.S. District Judge William Young was careful to emphasize that his expansive ruling restoring health research grants — cut following the same executive order cited by Bates — was nonetheless tailored only to provide relief to the organizations that sued. Like Bates, Young's ruling relied on the APA. 'Public officials, in their haste to appease the Executive, simply moved too fast and broke things,' Young wrote. In short, the Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions may be the tectonic shift that wasn't. Despite the extraordinary potential to reshape the judiciary, its immediate impact — particularly in the innumerable challenges to Trump's effort to single-handedly slash and reshape the federal government — may be limited.

Estate Planning And The Final OBBBA: Key Changes High-Net-Worth Individuals Must Know
Estate Planning And The Final OBBBA: Key Changes High-Net-Worth Individuals Must Know

Forbes

time27 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Estate Planning And The Final OBBBA: Key Changes High-Net-Worth Individuals Must Know

Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, departs following a vote at the US Capitol in ... More Washington, DC, US, on Saturday, June 28, 2025. President Donald Trump's $4.5 trillion tax cut bill prevailed in a crucial Senate test vote, a sign that Republican leaders are resolving the infighting over portions of the legislation and moving toward meeting a July 4 deadline the president has set for passage. Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed by the Senate on July 1, 2025, and approved by the House just in time for the July 4 deadline, solidifies significant tax reforms from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). For high-net-worth families, collectors, and trustees, several crucial aspects stand out for estate planning: 1. Permanent, Inflation-Indexed Estate & Gift Tax Exemption The final bill permanently increases the unified federal estate and lifetime gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual ($30 million for married couples), indexed for inflation starting in 2026. This secures the elevated threshold, preventing a drop to approximately $7 million per individual, which was anticipated if the TCJA provisions expired. This stability allows ultra-high-net-worth individuals to accelerate lifetime gifting and fund dynasty trusts efficiently. 2. GST Tax Exemption Reinforced The generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption is now aligned with the $15 million per individual exemption, also indexed for inflation. This paves the way for robust multi-generational planning through dynasty trusts and other strategic vehicles. 3. Trust Income Tax Brackets Made Permanent The OBBBA retains the TCJA-era tax brackets for trusts and estates, with annual inflation adjustments, offering trustees long-term predictability in managing irrevocable trusts. 4. No SALT Deduction Expansion for High-Net-Worth Households The legislation maintains the $10,000 cap on State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions, a move endorsed by Senate leadership. This decision means wealthy individuals in high-tax states must continue to focus on other tax planning strategies rather than relying on expanded SALT benefits. 5. Other Significant Changes Impacting Estate Planning Strategic Estate Planning Moves to Consider Act Now: No Sunset Provision The permanent, inflation-indexed $15 million exemptions mean there is no longer a sunset provision. Delaying estate planning is riskier as assets expected to appreciate, such as art and collectibles, should be transferred or trust-funded sooner rather than later. Dynastic Asset Transfers Utilizing elevated GST allocations, families can establish dynasty trusts designed to transfer wealth and cultural assets across generations with minimal tax implications. Art & Collectible Planning Gifting during one's lifetime with the $15 million exemption keeps value out of estates. Valuation oversight is critical, particularly for illiquid or unique items. Trust structures should be tailored for artwork governance, including role assignments and liquidity funding . Income Tax Predictability for Trusts With permanent TCJA income brackets, fiduciaries can confidently model trust income and distributions, aiding in managing trusts that hold income-producing assets. Avoid Relying on SALT Cap Changes Estate plans should not depend on expanded SALT deductions. Instead, focus on strategies like Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs), Charitable Lead Annuity Trusts (CLATs), and donor-advised funds for tax-efficient wealth transfers in high-tax states. Conclusion: A Strategic Window of Opportunity The OBBBA provides unprecedented permanence in estate and gift exemptions, presenting a well-defined planning window for high-net-worth families and fiduciaries. Revise estate plans to capitalize on the $15 million-per-individual exemptions, initiate or expand dynasty trusts, strengthen governance of holdings, augment liquidity reserves, and diversify planning strategies. This is a generationally significant moment—strategic action now can preserve and protect multigenerational wealth when it matters most.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store