Trump asks Supreme Court to allow him to end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from 4 countries
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to end humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from four countries.
The emergency appeal asks the justices to halt a lower-court order keeping in place legal protections for more than 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
The Republican administration argues that the decision wrongly intrudes on the Department of Homeland Security's authority.
'The district court has nullified one of the administration's most consequential immigration policy decisions,' Solicitor General John Sauer wrote.
The order from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston blocked the Trump administration from putting an early end to the immigrants' temporary legal status. Her ruling in mid-April came shortly before their permits were due to be canceled, setting them up for potential deportation.
Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, said that immigrants in the program who are in the United States legally now face an option of 'fleeing the country' or staying and 'risk losing everything.' She said the government's explanation for ending the program was 'based on an incorrect reading of the law.'
The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the Trump administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration.
Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people who are in the country illegally. His administration has also sought to dismantle policies from President Joe Biden's Democratic administration that created new ways for people to live legally in the U.S., generally for two years with work authorization.
Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included more than 500,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who flew to the United States with financial sponsors on two-year permits since late 2022, with authorization to work.
Advocates have called the Trump administration's move to end the program 'unprecedented' and argued that it violated federal rule-making.
___
Associated Press writer Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump, Xi speak for first time since Inauguration Day
President Donald Trump said he spoke Thursday with China's leader, Xi Jinping, breaking the monthslong silence between the two leaders. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said that U.S. and Chinese leaders will meet again 'shortly.' U.S. representatives will include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The president described it as a 'very good phone call' and said that Xi invited him to visit China. This is the first call between the two world leaders since Trump's second term began. It comes at a key point for China-U.S. relations as the two countries try to deescalate a trade war Trump started this spring by levying 145 percent tariffs on China, which the Chinese retaliated against, halting trade between the two countries.
Los Angeles Times
14 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in religious-rights case over unemployment taxes
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court decided Thursday that a Catholic charity doesn't have to pay Wisconsin unemployment taxes, one of a set of religious-rights cases the justices are considering this term. The unanimous ruling comes in a case filed by the Catholic Charities Bureau, which says the state violated the 1st Amendment's religious freedom guarantee when it required the organization to pay the tax while exempting other faith groups. Wisconsin argues the organization has paid the tax for over 50 years and doesn't qualify for an exemption because its day-to-day work doesn't involve religious teachings. Much of the groups' funding is from public money, and neither employees nor people receiving services have to belong to any faith, according to court papers. Catholic Charities, though, says it qualifies because its disability services are motivated by religious beliefs and the state shouldn't be making determinations about what work qualifies as religious. It appealed to the Supreme Court after Wisconsin's highest court ruled against it. President Trump's administration weighed in on behalf of Catholic Charites. Wisconsin has said that a decision in favor of the charity could open the door to big employers like religiously affiliated hospitals pulling out of the state unemployment system as well. The conservative-majority court has issued a string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in recent years. This term, though, a plan to establish a publicly funded Catholic charter school lost after when the justices deadlocked after Amy Coney Barrett recused herself. The nine-member court is also considering a case over religious objections to books read in public schools. In those arguments, the majority appeared sympathetic to the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court rules unanimously in favor of straight Ohio woman who claimed discrimination
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of an Ohio woman who claimed she was discriminated against for job promotions in favor of gay candidates on Thursday. The ruling, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, finds that members of majority groups in protected classes do not need to meet a higher standard of evidence in order to establish discrimination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion of the court in the 9-0 decision. "The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard," Jackson wrote. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated." The woman in the case, Marlean Ames, is a heterosexual woman who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. She argued she was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation after she was passed over for a promotion in 2019 in favor of a lesbian woman, and was then later replaced in her own role by a gay man. "Ames was qualified, had been denied a promotion in favor of a gay candidate, and was later demoted in favor of another gay candidate—evidence that would ordinarily satisfy her prima facie burden—before it specifically faulted Ames for failing to make the 'requisite showing of "background circumstances."'" Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Thursday's ruling strikes down the Sixth Circuit Court's "background circumstances" rule, which had required majority groups in protected classes to show special evidence of discrimination. Thursday's order does not fully resolve the case in Ames' favor, however. The court notes that Ohio had "alternative arguments" for why the Ohio government's treatment of Ames was justified. The justices said they are not weighing in on those alternative arguments, merely striking down the "background circumstances" rule. "We granted review to consider the validity of the "background circumstances" rule, and we reject that rule for the reasons set forth above. We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio's remaining arguments on remand," Jackson wrote. Ames' case was supported by the Justice Department, the American First Legal Foundation and the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the major groups backing Ohio in the case.
