US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants, World News
The US Supreme Court on Friday (May 30) let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations.
The court put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts.
Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to deter illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border.
Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal."
As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, Friday's decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the nine-member court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented.
The court botched its decision by failing to account for its impact, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, "undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."
The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants.
The Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out.
Biden starting in 2022 let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023.
A group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors sued, claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the programme's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold. 'Traumatic impact'
Guerline Jozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, one of the plaintiffs, expressed dismay at Friday's decision.
"Once again, the Trump administration blatantly proves their disregard for the lives of those truly in need of protection by taking away their status and rendering them undocumented. We have already seen the traumatic impact on children and families afraid to even go to school, church or work," Jozef said.
The administration called Friday's decision a victory, asserting that the migrants granted parole had been poorly vetted. Ending the parole programs "will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety and a return to America First," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.
[[nid:718316]]
While many of those with parole status are at risk of deportation, at least 250,000 had pending applications for another legal status, according to Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, one of the groups suing over the parole termination. Those applications had been frozen by Trump's administration but the freeze was lifted this week, said Tumlin, adding: "Those should be processed right now."
Migrants with parole status reacted to Friday's decision with sadness and disappointment.
Fermin Padilla, 32, waited two years in Chile to receive parole status and paid for his work permit.
"We complied with all the requirements the United States government asked for," said Padilla, who lives in Austin, Texas, and delivers Amazon packages. "Now I'm left without security because we don't know what will happen. We're without anything after so much sacrifice. It's not fair."
Retired university professor Wilfredo Sanchez, 73, has had parole status for a year and a half, living in Denver with his US citizen daughter, a doctor.
"I was alone in Venezuela, with diabetes and hypertension," Sanchez said. "I have been relaxed here, happy with (my daughter), her husband and my grandkids. I have all my medical treatment up to date."
"To return to Venezuela is to die, not just because of my medical conditions, but from loneliness," Sanchez added.
Carlos Daniel Urdaneta, 30, has lived in Atlanta for three years with parole status, working in a restaurant, since coming to the United States to earn money to send to his ill mother in Venezuela.
"If I have to work triple in my country, I will," said Urdaneta, whose wife and son are still in Venezuela. "I won't risk staying here undocumented with this government."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Obscure tax item in Trump's Bill alarms Wall Street
BURIED deep in the more than 1,000-page tax-and-spending bill that President Donald Trump is muscling through Congress is an obscure tax measure that's setting off alarms on Wall Street and beyond. The item – introduced in legislation that passed the House last week as Section 899 and titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes' – calls for, among other things, increasing tax rates for individuals and companies from countries whose tax policies the US deems 'discriminatory.' This includes raising tax rates on passive income, such as interest and dividends, earned by investors who are potentially sitting on trillions in American assets. Cloaked in technicalities, the implication of the 'revenge' measure, as it's quickly becoming known, is clear to analysts: If signed into law, it would further drive away foreign investors at a time when their once ironclad confidence in Treasury bonds and other US assets has already been shaken by Trump's erratic trade policies and the nation's deteriorating fiscal accounts. 'We're already dealing with a market where Treasuries, to foreign investors, probably aren't the most attractive investment,' said Michael Brown, a strategist at Pepperstone Group, a brokerage firm founded in Melbourne whose clients are all outside the US. Brown said he got so many inquiries from concerned clients that he quickly put together a report breaking down the measure. 'If you're now talking about massively unfavorable tax treatment, then it's just another reason to stay away.' Among those potentially affected: institutional investors including sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and even government entities, as well as retail investors and businesses with US assets. The proposed tax is separate from Trump's tariff-heavy trade agenda, which is now snarled in court, but the thrust is the same, and its aims align with some of the positions set forth by the economist Stephen Miran in a paper last November and those seeking a so-called Mar-a-Lago global restructuring accord. All seek to address perceived unfair treatment of the US by the rest of the world using targeted tools designed to put the country on a more even footing. But after years of foreign investors piling into US assets, experts fear the consequences of Section 899 may be far-reaching. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The provision amounts to 'weaponization of US capital markets into law' that 'challenges the open nature of US capital markets by explicitly using taxation on foreign holdings of US assets as leverage to further US economic goals,' George Saravelos, head of FX research at Deutsche Bank AG, wrote in a report on Thursday. 'We see this legislation as creating the scope for the US administration to transform a trade war into a capital war if it so wishes, a development that is highly relevant in the context of today's court decision constraining President Trump on trade policy.' Section 899 takes aim at countries including Canada, the UK, France and Australia that impose 'digital services taxes' on large technology companies such as Meta Platforms Inc. The clause also targets countries using provisions in a multi-country deal for minimum corporate taxes. The measure would boost the federal income tax rate on passive US income earned by investors and institutions based in the targeted countries, first by five percentage points, then rising by another five points each year to a maximum of 20 points above the statutory rate. 'Troubling' for bonds, dollar Morgan Stanley's strategists included the provision in frequently asked questions related to the tax-and-spending bill and concluded that Section 899 would weaken the dollar and European stocks with US exposure. Gilles Moec, the chief economist at AXA Group, said it could add to the pressure on long-term interest rates, which this month touched multi-year highs. Others see it dragging on the US currency. 'It's indeed sounds troubling,' said Rogier Quaedvlieg, senior US economist at ABN Amro Bank NV. 'By limiting new foreign demand, that would of course put pressure on the dollar.'' The risks related to the section 899 provision are seen by some as even more pressing after the US court order on Wednesday that blocked many of Trump's tariffs on imports. Tariffs are considered a key source of revenue to fund Trump's tax cuts, a signature part of his 'big, beautiful bill.' Without them, the question is where the administration will find the money to fund them. The intent of the measure appears similar in spirit to some ideas put forth in November by Miran while he was still working at hedge fund Hudson Bay Capital. Miran, now chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, raised the possibility of imposing 'user fees' on foreign investors in Treasuries as one option to help push down the dollar and address global trade imbalances. 'The clause is clearly endorsed by the administration and designed to give Trump a negotiation tool for pressuring countries to drop digital services taxes and global minimum corporate income taxes, which he sees as unfairly targeting US multinational companies,' wrote Economist Will Denyer and Tan Kai Xian at Gavekal Research. 'The problem is that before Trump has a chance to use the new tool, its very existence may unsettle bond markets.' What strategists say 'With tariff revenue more uncertain and less likely to offset tax cuts in the GOP budget bill, traders need to be prepared for tax changes on foreign holders, ultimately reducing demand for American financial assets.' – Michael Ball, Markets Live macro strategist For now, the market reaction to Section 899 appears muted, at best. Still, US assets as a whole have been underperformers this year as Trump's policies put a dent in the narrative of the 'America exceptionalism.' The S&P 500 is up about 0.4% this year, compared with a 20% gain in the German benchmark and a 18% rally in Hong Kong. The Bloomberg Dollar Index slumped about 7%. The US Treasuries returned 2%, trailing the 5% gain in the global government bonds in dollar terms, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Under the surface Section 899 is likely to remain in the final version of the reconciliation package, which is now being reviewed in Senate, because it has broad Republican support, according to Signum Global Advisors. While some are skeptical if the Section 899 would survive on concern it would dampen foreign investment into the US, Signum Global Advisors predicts it will likely remain in the final version of the reconciliation package, in part because it has broad Republican support. 'We believe the president's viewpoint is that there is such immense foreign appetite to invest in the US that it is not at risk of being thrown off course,' according to Charles Myers, a former Wall Street executive who runs advisory firm Signum, and Lew Lukens, a partner at the firm. To Pepperstone's Brown, the reason markets haven't reacted yet is because investors hadn't fully grasped the significance of the clause. But they're starting to now. 'It's only as the dust has settled that people are thinking that maybe there are some things lurking under the surface of the bill we should pay a little bit more attention to,' said Brown. 'And I think this section 899, this is probably one of them.' BLOOMBERG
International Business Times
an hour ago
- International Business Times
Who Is Gabrielle Cuccia? Pro-MAGA Journalist Fired for Criticizing Pete Hegseth's Treatment of Press at Pentagon After Signal Scandal
A pro-MAGA reporter was has been fired her job after criticizing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the way he handled the media at the Pentagon. Gabrielle Cuccia, a self-described 'MAGA girl' and longtime supporter of President Donald Trump, has never shied away from expressing her admiration for him. However, during her time as the chief Pentagon correspondent for the pro-Trump network One America News, Cuccia published a tell-all article on her personal Substack, highlighting the shortcomings of Hegseth's leadership, which eventually led to her getting fired. "If you want the best case study for the death of the MAGA movement — look no further than the Department of Defense," she wrote. Infuriating Hegseth "People sleep on the Pentagon. They don't realize what's been simmering at the bottom for weeks, months, sometimes even years." Cuccia raised concerns that Hegseth began restricting media access following his Signal app controversy, where a journalist was mistakenly included in a group chat in which Hegseth shared sensitive details about an upcoming strike on Houthi targets in Yemen. According to Cuccia, after the incident, Hegseth took steps to cut off important lines of communication between the media and his team in an attempt to "reduce the opportunity for in-person inadvertent or unauthorized disclosures." "Think of every time you hear a journalist reference a source as "Defense Official" or something abstract... a lot of times, it's coming from these guys," she revealed about the Pentagon press office. "And they are always there to provide additional context, field questions, and relay the reality of ops in an unclassified manner." Cuccia's article was published on Monday, and by Thursday, she was asked by her employer to return her Pentagon access badge. The following day, she was fired, she told CNN. In her piece, Cuccia criticized Hegseth for his lack of openness, accusing him of avoiding press briefings and claiming that his staff intentionally withheld details of his schedule until it was too late for journalists to attend. "Over at the White House, the Administration understands the freedom of the press, and keeps the door open anyway," she said. "They would certainly not field questions *before* said press briefing." Too Harsh a Punishment Cuccia claimed that during one press briefing, members of Hegseth's team contacted her to find out what question she planned to ask if given the chance to speak at the conference. Believing they just wanted to be well-prepared for their first briefing and provide thorough answers, she shared her question. "Unfortunately, that was not the case," she said. "This article isn't to serve as a tearing down of the SecDef," she wrote. "This is me wanting to keep MAGA alive. Despite my loyalty to this movement, we are killing ourselves." Cuccia said the power behind the MAGA movement was sparked in 2015, when "America woke up" with a collective understanding that citizens would no longer treat the government's word as unquestionable truth. However, she noted that since those early days, the movement has noticeably drifted away from its original principles. "Somewhere along the way, we as a collective decided — if anyone ever questioned a policy or person within the MAGA movement — that they weren't MAGA enough. "I will always be MAGA, but consider this a love letter to what we have lost, what we must regain, and my final plea to Love Your Country, Not Your Government." Cuccia spoke out publicly for about her firing on Saturday, posting on Instagram: "I was once told that a former peer feared I was too MAGA for the job. I guess I was. I guess I am."
Straits Times
7 hours ago
- Straits Times
Bangladesh top court restores largest Islamist party
Bangladesh's Jamaat-e-Islami leader A.T.M. Azharul Islam (centre) gestures after he was released from prison in Dhaka on May 28. PHOTO: AFP DHAKA - Bangladesh on June 1 restored the registration of the largest Islamist party, allowing it to take part in elections, more than a decade after it was removed under the now-overthrown government. The Supreme Court overturned a cancellation of Jamaat-e-Islami's registration, allowing it to be formally listed as a political party with the Election Commission. 'The Election Commission is directed to deal with the registration of that party in accordance with law,' commission lawyer Towhidul Islam told AFP. Jamaat-e-Islami party lawyer, Mr Shishir Monir, said the Supreme Court's decision would allow a 'democratic, inclusive and multi-party system' in the Muslim-majority country of 170 million people. 'We hope that Bangladeshis, regardless of their ethnicity or religious identity, will vote for Jamaat, and that the parliament will be vibrant with constructive debates,' Mr Monir told journalists. After Sheikh Hasina was ousted as prime minister in August, the party appealed for a review of the 2013 high court order banning it. The June 1 decision comes after the Supreme Court on May 27 overturned a conviction against a key leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, A.T.M. Azharul Islam. Mr Islam had been sentenced to death in 2014 for rape, murder and genocide during Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence from Pakistan. Jamaat-e-Islami supported Islamabad during the war, a role that still sparks anger among many Bangladeshis today. They were rivals of Ms Hasina's father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of the Awami League, who would become Bangladesh's founding figure. Ms Hasina banned Jamaat-e-Islami during her tenure and cracked down on its leaders. In May, Bangladesh's interim government banned the Awami League, pending the outcome of a trial over its crackdown on mass protests that prompted her ouster in 2024. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
