logo
Federal judge halts Trump TPS policy, accuses DHS of making migrants 'atone for their race'

Federal judge halts Trump TPS policy, accuses DHS of making migrants 'atone for their race'

Fox News6 days ago
A federal judge in California delayed the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) decision to terminate protections for immigrants from three countries, a move that adds to the legal hurdles for the Trump administration as it pushes to carry out its deportation agenda.
Judge Trina Thompson said that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's terminations of temporary protected status, also known as TPS, for immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal were likely "preordained decisions" that violated the Administrative Procedure Act and were driven by racial animus.
"The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek," Thompson, a Biden-appointee, wrote in an order. "Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees."
Thompson later added: "Color is neither a poison nor a crime."
The lawsuit was brought by a group representing TPS holders, including some who have lived in the country for more than two decades.
Attorneys wrote in court papers on behalf of the immigrants that they were "laborers, health care workers, artists, and caretakers" who have "relied on TPS to provide the most basic forms of human security — a stable place to live and a chance to work for a living during a time of severe crisis in their home countries."
They argued that Noem declining to extend their TPS status was, by law, supposed to be reached based on an individualized analysis of each country. The judge found that Noem likely failed to condition TPS termination on factors specific to the immigrants' countries of origin.
They also said Noem had given the immigrants a historically short notice period of 60 days before they would lose their TPS status. And she and other Trump administration officials have normalized using "racist invective" to explain their TPS decisions, the attorneys said.
The attorneys cited dozens of examples of Trump or Noem describing migrants as MS-13 gang members, murderers, terrorists and people who have it in their "genes" to commit crime. They pointed to Trump's viral debate moment in which he made the unproven claim that Haitian immigrants were eating Ohioans' house pets.
The TPS program gives the DHS authority to permit immigrants who might otherwise have no legal status to temporarily reside in the United States because of extraordinary circumstances in their home countries, such as wars or natural disasters.
The plaintiffs argued that roughly 61,000 people would lose their TPS as a result of Noem's decision, which would end the immigrants' legal status and work authorizations and make them eligible for deportation.
The Trump administration has argued that the statute governing TPS gives DHS secretaries sole discretion over TPS designations and that Noem should be allowed to end the status using the same authority that past secretaries used to grant it.
In May, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in an emergency order related to a case involving TPS for Venezuelans. The order temporarily paused a lower court order, clearing the way for Noem to end TPS for about 350,000 immigrants.
Thompson's decision will stay in place until at least November, when the next hearing is scheduled. DHS told Fox News Digital it plans to appeal the decision.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US lenders weighed reputation rules, not politics, in closing accounts, sources say
US lenders weighed reputation rules, not politics, in closing accounts, sources say

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US lenders weighed reputation rules, not politics, in closing accounts, sources say

By Nupur Anand and Saeed Azhar NEW YORK (Reuters) -Decisions by some major U.S. banks to close accounts were based on rules around reputational risk, people familiar with the matter said, pushing back on President Donald Trump's accusation that he and his conservative supporters were denied services for political reasons. Trump on Tuesday renewed his criticism of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, saying they discriminated against him by refusing to accept hundreds of millions of dollars in deposits. While banks have been careful not to contradict the president directly and provoke his ire, two industry sources cited regulations under the former President Joe Biden's administration that forced them to weigh reputational risks as the reason lenders have dropped clients or avoided others. The sources declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. One bank was concerned about this issue when dealing with Trump because of his legal woes during the Biden administration, the first source said. Spokespeople for JPMorgan and Bank of America both said they do not consider political affiliations in banking decisions and welcomed Trump's efforts to change regulations. A source familiar with the matter said that JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family and it also banks a number of campaign accounts linked to Trump. The White House did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment. BIDEN ERA RULES Under the Biden era, regulators who oversaw the banks would judge the lenders' compliance with the rules, which banks said were based on subjective judgments by government supervisors, the first industry source said. Banks were also concerned about whether regulators would punish them for providing services to individuals who faced legal proceedings, like Trump, the first and second sources said. The main U.S. bank regulators -- the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency -- have all directed its supervisors this year to stop considering reputational risk when examining banks, a metric that had drawn industry complaints for being too subjective. "The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion," the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. A looming executive order expected as early as this week would instruct regulators to review banks for "politicized or unlawful debanking" practices, according to a draft reviewed by Reuters. Banks also plan to use the current debate to push the government to clarify anti-money laundering laws and establish a clear federal standard on fair access to financial services, the third source said. NOT ISOLATED Trump's criticism echoed longstanding "debanking" complaints from Republicans, who have accused Wall Street banks of "woke capitalism," as well as denying services to gunmakers, fossil-fuel companies and others perceived to be aligned with the political right. Earlier this year, the Trump organization sued Capital One for closing 300 accounts related to the group. The closures came after thousands of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Capital One declined to comment beyond its earlier legal filings. Trump also drew headlines in January when he blasted banks for debanking at a gathering of business leaders in Davos, Switzerland. Paul Chesser, director, corporate integrity project at the conservative-leaning National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), cited former Kansas Governor and Senator Sam Brownback as among the conservatives who were debanked by JPMorgan and other banks. Brownback wrote in the New York Post that JPMorgan had abruptly canceled his newly opened account for the National Committee for Religious Freedom in 2022. The JPMorgan spokesperson said the decision to close the accounts was not related to politics. "The Senator is fully aware why his accounts were closed," the spokesperson said, without elaborating on the reasons for the closure. Brownback told Reuters he had been given five different reasons by the bank for the account closure and was not certain what the final explanation was. NLPC has raised debanking concerns with BofA and JPMorgan through shareholder proposals, which were not included in the banks' proxies, Chesser said. Bank supervision by government regulators is a mostly confidential process that limits banks from explaining to clients why they are declined services. "Customers should not be in the dark about why they are being de-banked," said Chesser. "Nobody got any explanation. They're totally left in the dark. And that is probably the number one priority." Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Thursday briefing: Trump's tariffs; Fort Stewart shooting; Alzheimer's study; making potatoes healthy; and more
Thursday briefing: Trump's tariffs; Fort Stewart shooting; Alzheimer's study; making potatoes healthy; and more

Washington Post

time11 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Thursday briefing: Trump's tariffs; Fort Stewart shooting; Alzheimer's study; making potatoes healthy; and more

President Donald Trump's new tariffs for dozens of countries took effect overnight. Tulsi Gabbard overrode CIA officials' concerns in a push to release a classified report. The U.S. plans to scale back its human rights criticisms of certain countries. Five soldiers were shot at Fort Stewart Army base in Georgia. Scientists found a potential key to reversing Alzheimer's disease.

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