Supreme Court allows Trump admin to move on ending legal protections for some Venezuelan migrants
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to lift a lower court injunction that blocked President Donald Trump's decision to terminate the protected legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the U.S., in a win for the administration as it looks to deliver on its hard-line immigration enforcement policies.
The decision clears the way for the Trump administration to move forward with its plans to terminate Biden-era Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for roughly 300,000 Venezuelan migrants living in the U.S. and allows the administration to move forward with plans to immediately remove these migrants, which lawyers for the administration argued they should be able to do.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued as much when he asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunction this month, arguing in an emergency appeal that a lower court judge had overstepped their authority by blocking the administration from ending the program for certain Venezuelans.
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case
"The district court's reasoning is untenable," Sauer told the high court, adding that the program "implicates particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch regarding immigration policy."
At issue was the TPS program, which allows people from certain countries to live and work in the U.S. legally if they cannot work safely in their home country due to a disaster, armed conflict or other "extraordinary and temporary conditions."
Read On The Fox News App
Maga Group Fights To Undo Carter-era Ban On Merit-based Federal Hiring
The protections were extended during the end of the Biden administration, shortly before Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in February abruptly terminated the program for a specific group of Venezuelan nationals, arguing they were not in the national interest.
In March, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed to keep the protections in place, siding with plaintiffs from the National TPS Alliance in ruling that the termination of the TPS program, which is extended in 18-month increments, is "unprecedented" and suggested that the abrupt termination may have been "predicated on negative stereotypes" about Venezuelan migrants.
Sauer disputed this in the appeal to the Supreme Court. In it, he also accused the lower court judge of improperly intruding on the executive branch's authority over immigration policy.
"Forceful condemnations of gang violence and broad questioning of the integrity of the prior administration's immigration practices, including potential abuses of the TPS program, do not evince discriminatory intent," Sauer said, describing Chen's descriptions as "cherry-picked" and "wrongly portrayed" as "racially tinged."
Fox News's Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report.Original article source: Supreme Court allows Trump admin to move on ending legal protections for some Venezuelan migrants
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
12 minutes ago
- CBS News
Southern Baptist delegates overwhelmingly back prohibiting same-sex marriage
Dallas — Southern Baptist delegates at their national meeting overwhelmingly endorsed a ban on same-sex marriage - including a call for a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's 10-year-old precedent legalizing it nationwide. They also called for legislators to curtail sports betting and support policies that promote childbearing. The votes Tuesday came at the gathering of more than 10,000 church representatives at the annual meeting of the nation's largest Protestant denomination. The wide-ranging resolution doesn't use the word "ban" but left no room for legal same-sex marriage in calling for the "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family." Further, the resolution affirmatively calls "for laws that affirm marriage between one man and one women." A reversal of the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell decision wouldn't in and of itself amount to a nationwide ban. At the time of that ruling, 36 states had already legalized same-sex marriage, and support remains strong in many areas. However, if the convention got its wish, not only would Obergefell be overturned, but every law and court ruling that affirmed same-sex marriage would, as well. Messengers attending the Southern Baptist Convention participate in worship during the 2025 SBC Annual Meeting on June 10, 2025, in Dallas. Richard W. Rodriguez / AP There was no debate on the marriage resolution. That in itself isn't surprising in the solidly conservative denomination, which has long defined marriage as between one man and one woman. However, it marks an especially assertive step in its call for the reversal of a decade-old Supreme Court ruling, as well as any other legal pillars to same-sex marriage in law and court precedent. The marriage issue was incorporated into a much larger resolution on marriage and family - one that calls for civil law to be based on what the convention says is the divinely created order as stated in the Bible. The resolution says legislators have a duty to "pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law - about marriage, sex, human life, and family" and to oppose laws contradicting "what God has made plain through nature and Scripture." The same resolution calls for recognizing "the biological reality of male and female" and opposes "any law or policy that compels people to speak falsehoods about sex and gender." It urges Christians to "embrace marriage and childbearing" and to see children "as blessings rather than burdens." But it also frames that issue as one of public policy. It calls for "for renewed moral clarity in public discourse regarding the crisis of declining fertility and for policies that support the bearing and raising of children within intact, married families." It laments that modern culture is "pursuing willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate," echoing a growing subject of discourse on the religious and political right. Delegates weigh in on other controversial topics A pornography resolution, which had no debate, calls such material destructive, addictive and exploitive and says governments have the power to ban it. The sports betting resolution draws on Southern Baptists' historic opposition to gambling. It called sports betting "harmful and predatory." One pastor urged an amendment to distinguish between low-stakes, recreational gambling and predatory, addictive gambling activities. But his proposed amendment failed. Andrew Walker, chair of the Committee on Resolutions, said at a news conference that the marriage resolution shows that Southern Baptists aren't going along with the widespread social acceptance of same-sex marriage. But Walker, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, acknowledged that a realistic rollback strategy would require incremental steps, such as seeking to overturn Obergefell. "I'm clear-eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution," he said. The two-day annual meeting began Tuesday morning with praise sessions and optimistic reports about growing numbers of baptisms. But casting a pall over the gathering is the recent death of one of the most high-profile whistleblowers in the Southern Baptists' scandal of sexual abuse. Jennifer Lyell, a onetime denominational publishing executive who went public in 2019 with allegations that she had been sexually abused by a seminary professor while a student, died Saturday at 47. She "suffered catastrophic strokes," a friend and fellow advocate, Rachael Denhollander, posted Sunday on X. Friends reported that the backlash Lyell received after going public with her report took a devastating toll on her. Several abuse survivors and advocates for reform, who previously had a prominent presence in recent SBC meetings, are skipping this year's gathering, citing lack of progress by the convention. Two people sought to fill that void, standing vigil outside the meeting at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas as attendees walked by. The pair held up signs with photos of Lyell and of Gareld Duane Rollins, who died earlier this spring and who was among those who accused longtime SBC power broker Paul Pressler of sexual abuse. "It's not a healthy thing for them (survivors) to be here," said Johnna Harris, host of a podcast on abuse in evangelical ministries. "I felt like it was important for someone to show up. I want people to know there are people who care." The SBC Executive Committee, in a 2022 apology, acknowledged "its failure to adequately listen, protect, and care for Jennifer Lyell when she came forward to share her story." It also acknowledged the denomination's official news agency had not accurately reported the situation as "sexual abuse by a trusted minister in a position of power at a Southern Baptist seminary." SBC officials issued statements this week lamenting Lyell's death, but her fellow advocates have denounced what they say is a failure to implement reforms. The SBC's 2022 meeting voted overwhelmingly to create a way to track pastors and other church workers credibly accused of sex abuse. That came shortly after the release of a blockbuster report by an outside consultant, which said Southern Baptist leaders mishandled abuse cases and stonewalled victims for years. But the denomination's Executive Committee president, Jeff Iorg, said earlier this year that creating a database is not a focus and that the committee instead plans to refer churches to existing databases of sex offenders and focus on education about abuse prevention. The committee administers the denomination's day-to-day business. Advocates for reform don't see those approaches as adequate. It is the latest instance of "officials trailing out hollow words, impotent task forces and phony dog-and-pony shows of reform," abuse survivor and longtime advocate Christa Brown wrote on Baptist News Global, which is not SBC-affiliated. In a related action, the Executive Committee will also be seeking $3 million in convention funding for ongoing legal expenses related to abuse cases. As of late Tuesday afternoon, attendance was at 10,541 church representatives (known as messengers). That is less than a quarter of the total that thronged the SBC's annual meeting 40 years ago this month in a Dallas showdown that marked the height of battles over control of the convention, ultimately won by the more conservative-fundamentalist side led by Pressler and his allies. Messengers will also debate whether to institute a constitutional ban on churches with women pastors and to abolish its public-policy arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission - which is staunchly conservative but, according to critics, not enough so. Brent Leatherwood, president of the ERLC, said Tuesday he would address the "turbulence" during his scheduled remarks Wednesday but was confident in the messengers' support.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Newsom and California confront Trump with a potential blueprint for Democrats
Democratic politicians have spent the last few months talking about standing up to President Donald Trump in his second term. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is among the first faced with figuring out what standing up actually looks like. Allies and opponents agree how Newsom handles the protests – including Trump's calling in the National Guard and sending in active-duty Marines over the governor's objections – will reverberate far beyond California, and long after this week. That's how Newsom is approaching what has become a fight on the streets and in the courts, only a few days after he was responding to a Trump administration effort to identify federal grants going to the state that can be canceled. Other Democratic governors have been calling Newsom, checking in, ticking through scenarios in their minds of how what's happened in California could play out at home for them, according to multiple people briefed on the conversations. Every Democratic governor signed onto a statement over the weekend calling Trump's call-up of the National Guard an 'alarming abuse of power,' but they have been treading carefully since then, their eyes on both the politics of potentially triggering Trump and on the legal concerns of how their words might be used in lawsuits they might have to bring. Newsom, people familiar with his thinking say, wants California to hold the line after some universities and law firms facing White House pressure reached concession deals with the administration. 'What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment,' Newsom said in remarks released Tuesday evening. 'Do not give into him.' 'If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant – based only on suspicion or skin color – then none of us are safe. Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there,' Newsom said, reiterating accusations that Trump officials instigated and inflamed what started as peaceful protests, though there have been skirmishes and occasional violence that Newsom and others have condemned. 'This is about all of us. This is about you,' he said. 'California may be first – but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.' Prev Next As obvious as Newsom's presidential ambitions are, several top Democrats say this is much more America over the next few months than any talk of the 2028 presidential primary. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, another potential 2028 candidate, has become one of the most outspoken Democrats calling attention to what he says is Trump's direct threat to democracy in his second term. Trump 'is clearly trying to scare his opposition into silence, and that is definitely one of the ways that democracies die: when people fear that they are going to face physical harm if they turn out for protests, it often causes people to stay home. That is a tried and true path for democracies to be converted into autocracies. Elections still happen, but the opposition can never amount to any kind of numbers because people fear they'll get the shit kicked out of them if they show up,' Murphy told CNN. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who acknowledged his record-breaking 25-hour Senate speech came during a different phase both for Trump and for Democrats' response, saw the faceoff the same way. 'With this president's clear authoritarian bent, lack of respect for separation of powers and violations of the law, we're in dangerous territory with still three-plus years to go. That's what California has me concerned about,' Booker said. For months, Newsom angered many Democrats by inviting Trump-friendly figures onto his podcast or taking shots at his own party for going too far on the issue of transgender athletes playing in women's sports. He tried to connect with Trump in an effort to get more federal money to rebuild after the devastation of the Los Angeles wildfires at the beginning of the year and suggested he'd work with Trump on tariffs aimed at bucking up the film industry that has been fleeing California, even as other leading Democrats called for more intense pushback, like when Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said in a fiery speech in New Hampshire in April that, 'never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now.' But the events of the last few days have rekindled the long-simmering rivalry between Trump and Newsom. Newsom dared the Trump administration in one television interview to arrest him rather than targeting immigrant children. Trump then suggested in response to a reporter's question that Newsom should be arrested. The only rationale Trump has offered for making the threat of arresting a sitting governor is because 'his primary crime is running for governor, because he's done such a bad job.' 'I like the fact that when one of Trump's henchmen threatened Newsom with arrest, he said, 'Well, come and get me, here I am.' We're not going to be afraid of Donald Trump because we have the rule of law on our side. We're standing up for the Constitution. The states are not the pawns of the federal government. The states have an independent constitutional and political existence,' said Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who taught constitutional law before being elected to the House. 'Other governors should stand up for the rule of law and stand up for the rights of their people.' With some looters also taking to the streets while Trump and his deputy chief of staff refer to an 'insurrection,' the situation hasn't gone over well with every Democrat, including those who worry about playing into Trump's hands on a signature issue. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman is among members of the party who have called for a more forceful condemnation of violent protesters. Newsom himself has said that those engaged in violence or attacking police officers would be prosecuted and noted that law enforcement is already reviewing videos of the events to track down more perpetrators. Even before Trump already threatened 'very heavy force' if any protesters disrupt the massive military parade he is hosting this Saturday in Washington on his 79th birthday, leaders in other centers of immigrants were expressing concern about what happens if federal agents target their communities. 'I would hope that New Yorkers will speak up and do whatever they believe is their constitutional right in a non-violent way, and if Trump tried to tamp it up, I think the people would see it for what it is,' said New York Rep. Greg Meeks. 'I would say to New Yorkers and others, 'We know what he's trying to do.'' A few Republicans have joined Democrats in expressing concern, including swing district California GOP Rep. David Valadao, who tweeted Tuesday that he is 'concerned about ongoing ICE operations through CA.' But for now, most Republican leaders have either been expressing support for Trump or staying quiet about the situation. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he couldn't speak to the legal argument about arresting Newsom, but 'he ought to be tarred and feathered.' While some Democratic strategists, including some who have kicked in with advice to Newsom in recent days, have urged a more defensive position that echoes Trump's hardline approach to immigration so that they don't give the president a fight he clearly wants, others are glad to see Newsom taking a more forceful lead on his own terms. 'Democrats need to recognize that voters are appalled by Trump's overreach on immigration – not just Democratic voters, but independent voters, libertarian leaning voters don't believe in arresting random peaceful people and separating families,' said Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. 'So we shouldn't be scared of going toe-to-toe with Trump on his overreach and abuse of people's rights.'
20 minutes ago
As Trump escalates immigration fight, Democrats face high-stakes test: ANALYSIS
The standoff between Democratic leadership in deep-blue California and the Trump administration amid protests of immigration raids in Los Angeles lays bare bitter political divisions and sets the stage for the high-stakes fight at the ballot box as the midterm elections inch closer, with the 2028 presidential contest to follow not long after that. From the Oval Office, President Donald Trump promised that more cities could see raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. With that, the possibility of a sustained protest movement grows, along with the possibility of more federal intervention -- whether Democratic officials want it or not. The way Democrats proceed in this moment could affect enthusiasm for the party's candidates come midterms time, when the party is trying to reclaim power in a Washington where it has very little. For Democrats, anti-Trump sentiment is undoubtedly a mobilizing factor, and polling has suggested Democrats want their leaders to fight harder against the Republican Party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, widely considered to be a possible 2028 presidential candidate, has positioned himself as the most prominent foil to an administration he's accused of encroaching on his state's autonomy by deploying federal troops to Los Angeles without an ask from California authorities. Newsom was also emboldened in his criticism of Trump after the president told reporters Monday it would be a "great thing" if Newsom were arrested. "The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor," Newsom posted on Instagram, along with a video of Trump's comments. "This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation -- this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." Still, later Monday, Newsom condemned the violence in his state while appearing to place blame on the president, saying, "Have no doubt -- Violent criminals who take advantage of Trump's chaos WILL be held accountable. Our number one priority has been and will be keeping LA safe." Democratic governors stood by Newsom in a carefully worded statement that both condemned the violence that took place in Los Angeles and called Trump's actions "ineffective and dangerous." "It's important we respect the executive authority of our country's governors to manage their National Guards -- and we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation," they said in the statement. Similarly, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass urged peaceful protest and condemned Trump's actions, telling reporters on Sunday, "What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration." The optics of violence in the streets of a major American city -- though the most destructive protests have been in a relatively small, isolated area -- with Democrats pushing back on militarized force on protesters is a fight the Trump White House, and Republicans more broadly, are willing to wage. "I think it's another reason why you're seeing the demise of the Democrat brand around the country," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Tuesday. "You got a city on fire," he added. "You got people marching with foreign flags, people marching with a Mexican flag in LA, resisting federal law, interfering with federal law. You have the governor and the mayor, both Democrats, saying they will interfere and will not uphold federal law." And while many elected Democrats will take a head-on Newsom-esque approach to confronting moves by the Trump administration, others will likely try to find less combative ways to do so. In San Francisco, which saw protests of its own related to ICE raids, Mayor Daniel Lurie centered public safety in his message about protests and has avoided mentioning Trump by name. "Everyone in this country has a right to make their voice heard peacefully," Lurie said Sunday. "But we will never tolerate violent and destructive behavior." Lurie has drawn some criticism from some corners of San Francisco for his relative silence on Trump, but others argue it allows him to stay above the fray. It remains to be seen which strategy -- Newsom's defiance or Lurie's restraint -- will resonate with voters.
