A legal win for immigrant protections — but the clock is still ticking

Boston Globe

3 days ago

Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The program allows people whose home countries have experienced natural disasters, war, or civil strife to live in the United States and apply for work permits. Ending the protections is supposed to be based on whether it's safe to return, but the Trump administration seems intent on revoking it out of racism and spite.
Related
:
'The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream,' Thompson wrote. 'That is all Plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees.'
One of the plaintiffs is Maria Elena Hernandez, a Nicaraguan immigrant who arrived in the United States nearly three decades ago. She was visiting her brothers in Florida when
'We are not criminals, we are not illegal, we are not undocumented, and we work legally with the permit that TPS gives us,' Hernandez, 67, told me in an interview. She has worked as a janitor in a Florida university for the past 18 years. 'We contribute economically because we have always paid our taxes. We have always respected the laws of this country and have always lived with the promise that if our countries are not safe, they will protect us here.'
Jackey Baiza, who came to the United States from Honduras at age 2, spoke during a rally in solidarity with TPS holders from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua during a vigil on July 29 in Boston.
Danielle Parhizkaran/Globe Staff
Thompson's ruling also acknowledges the broader consequences of terminating Temporary Protected Status. Many of the plaintiffs, she noted, are 'long-standing employees' who have built lives and livelihoods over decades in the US. 'Termination of TPS for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua will result in a $1.4 billion loss to the United States economy,' the federal judge wrote.
Hernandez said she decided to join the lawsuit because she wanted to fight the Trump administration's unjust attempts to end the program. 'It would be very devastating for me' to move back to Nicaragua, she told me, 'not only because it would separate me from my family, but also because I would lose my Social Security, to which I have contributed for so many years, and my health insurance, which I need so much because I have chronic asthma and a heart condition.'
Advertisement
Lest we forget, the US government itself
The fight to preserve the protections is far from over, but the reality is grim. The Trump administration seems intent in decimating the program, which as of Sept. 30 was protecting
Still, for Guerline Jozef, executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in Southern California, it is vital to highlight Thompson's ruling as a powerful affirmation that 'our communities matter,' she said in an interview.
Indeed, Thompson's ruling offers a clear-eyed assessment of what's really driving the push to end temporary protections: It isn't national security; it's racialized fear. Unless Congress steps in with a permanent solution (here's hoping against hope) decades of contribution and belonging can still be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.
Advertisement
Marcela García is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at