Green Card Holders Handed Big Legal Win Amid Trump Administration Crackdown
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot unilaterally revoke a green card, calling the government's approach "antithetical" to the separation of powers and a violation of Congress' authority in a case pertaining to a lawful permanent resident.
A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by Newsweek on Wednesday. Newsweek has contacted the petitioner's counsel for comment via email.
Why It Matters
The court's decision pushes back on the Trump administration's desire to be able to reconsider and potentially revoke an individual's lawful permanent residency, which could have sweeping implications for millions of permanent residents.
President Donald Trump has pledged to launch the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, and immigrants residing in the country illegally and legally, with valid documentation such as green cards and visas, have been detained. Newsweek has reported dozens of cases involving green-card holders and applicants who were swept up in the immigration raids and various arrests.
A Customs and Border Protection warning published on July 9 said, "Possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right." It added that legal residents arriving at a port of entry with prior criminal convictions may be detained in advance of removal proceeding.
A new U.S. citizen waiting to take the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago on June 25.
A new U.S. citizen waiting to take the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago on June 25.
KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images
What To Know
In a Tuesday ruling, a court said the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is part of the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, lacked the authority to unilaterally revoke the legal permanent status of Mohammad Qatanani, a longtime New Jersey imam.
Qatanani, who is Palestinian, has spent more than two decades seeking permanent residency in the United States.
In 1996, he was admitted to the U.S. on a work visa, and three years later he applied to adjust his status to a lawful permanent resident. However, federal officials cited alleged ties to Hamas, allegations that Qatanani has denied.
"An Immigration Judge twice made fact findings and credibility determinations in Qatanani's favor and granted his application to adjust to LPR status. The IJ issued those orders in 2008 and 2020, respectively," the case said.
However, the 2008 order never became final because the Department of Homeland Security appealed, and the BIA vacated it. Although DHS did not appeal the second ruling within the required 30 days, the BIA later ordered Qatanani's removal, a decision he appealed.
Tuesday's opinion, written by Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, said, "The BIA exceeded its authority when it attempted to undo Qatanani's adjustment to LPR status by using an agency regulation in a manner inconsistent with the procedures set out by Congress in the [Immigration and Nationality Act]," adding that it came long after the 30-day period.
Freeman continued, "Accordingly, we granted Qatanani's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order," thereby asserting that the immigration judge's 2020 order granting Qatanani permanent residency was upheld.
Later in the opinion, she wrote: "The implications of this [the Justice Department's] argument are extraordinary. Under this reading of agency authority, the government has carte blanche to evade the limits Congress imposed on the Executive's discretionary authority over adjustments to LPR status and to circumvent the procedures Congress mandated for recission of such adjustments."
Freeman continued: "The government's position is antithetical to 'the basic concept of separation of powers.' … We therefore reject it."
Judge Paul Matey, whom Trump appointed to the court, wrote in his dissent, "For more than a quarter century, five Presidents and 10 Attorneys General have objected to Mohammad Qatanani's presence in our Nation."
He concluded, "Seeing no constitutional claim or legal question that warrants granting the petition, and mindful we lack jurisdiction to review the Executive's discretionary decision not to grant Qatanani a status adjustment, I would deny the petition and so respectfully dissent."
What People Are Saying
Amelia Wilson, an assistant professor of law and the director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Pace University, told Newsweek: "Under Trump, the Department of Justice has repeatedly sought to usurp Congressional lawmaking authority, rewrite the Constitution, and upset the balance of power. The judiciary's duty is to safeguard the people against such abusive government conduct and Executive overreach. The Third Circuit did just that yesterday by guaranteeing that, at least for now, the Department must observe the basic mandates of due process."
Bradford Bernstein, a managing partner at Spar Bernstein, previously told Newsweek: "In this case, the government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps required to finalize the grant of permanent residency. The immigrant involved was granted a green card by a judge, and the government failed to appeal within the standard 30-day window. Under well-established legal principles, that decision should be considered final. Yet the government now claims that because of a procedural oversight by the judge or the immigration service, it can still rescind the green card long after the fact."
Customs and Border Protection wrote on X on July 8: "Having a criminal history does not make you an upstanding lawful permanent resident. Possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right. Under our nation's laws, our government has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused. In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention."
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote on X on May 5: "Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law, supports terrorism, overstays their permitted visit time, performs illegal work, or anything else that violates the terms on which we granted them this privilege or compromises the safety of our fellow Americans."
What Happens Next
The BIA's order has been vacated against Qatanani and maintains that he is a lawful permanent resident.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
How many voters really care about Jeffrey Epstein?
Twitter (X) is not the real world. Who knew? If you were on the social media site for the past week you'd have thought that the most important issue to American voters is the dead criminal Jeffrey Epstein. Advertisement There´s a huge amount we still don't know about the convicted sex offender. And there's plenty about him — the sources of his wealth, high-profile connections, and manner of his death — the public deserve to know about. But outside the Twitter-sphere Epstein isn't the story at the moment. Financier Jeffrey Epstein appears in a photograph taken for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services' sex offender registry March 28, 2017 and obtained by Reuters July 10, 2019. REUTERS Advertisement Some MAGA influencers have decided that the release or otherwise of all known information about Epstein is a 'make or break' issue between them and the President. The President has expressed understandable frustration that he should be distracted from matters like, say, the economy, and keep getting asked about Epstein. Online personalities threaten that Trump is going to lose all support from his base unless every file relating to Epstein is released. And yet despite this bragging threat, the polls show otherwise. Advertisement President Trump's approval rating among Republican voters actually went up this week, according to two separate polls. So whether or not the administration is right in its attitude towards the files, Trump himself is absolutely wise to look at his Twitter critics and say, 'Oh yeah, you and whose online army?'
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The House is poised to OK Trump's $9 billion cut to public broadcasting and foreign aid
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The House has already approved a previous version of the bill. But it now needs to take up the version that passed the Senate before it can be sent to Trump's desk for his signature. Advertisement 'We need to get back to fiscal sanity and this is an important step,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters shortly after the chamber opened. The package cancels about $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly $8 billion for a variety of foreign aid programs, many designed to help countries where drought, disease and political unrest endure. The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending comes just weeks after Republicans also muscled through Trump's tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase the U.S. debt by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade. Advertisement A heavy blow to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting The cancellation of $1.1 billion for the CPR represents the full amount it is due to receive during the next two budget years. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming. Democrats were unsuccessful in restoring the cut in the Senate. Lawmakers with large rural constituencies have voiced particular concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the stations are 'not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.' Later in the day Tuesday, as the Senate debated the bill, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some money administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states. But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save.' Advertisement Inside the cuts to foreign aid Among the foreign aid cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and family reunification for refugees and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations. Democrats argued that the Republican administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. 'When we retreat from the world diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, America will be alone, without allies, in a less stable world,' said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. 'And you know who will come out ahead? China. Russia. Iran.' The White House argued that many of the cuts would incentivize other nations to step up and do more to respond to humanitarian crises and that the rescissions best served the American taxpayer. 'The money that we're clawing back in this rescissions package is the people's money. We ought not to forget that,' said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chair of the House Rules Committee. After objections from several Republicans, Senate GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under Republican President George W. Bush. Looking ahead to future spending fights Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities. Triggered by the official rescissions request from the White House, the legislation only needs a simple majority vote to advance instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster. That meant Republicans could use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines. Advertisement In the end, two Republican senators, Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, though a few other Republicans also raised concerns about the process. 'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut. Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the imminent successful passage of the rescissions shows 'enthusiasm' for getting the nation's fiscal situation under control. 'We're happy to go to great lengths to get this thing done,' he said during a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. In response to questions about the relatively small size of the cuts -- $9 billion -- Vought said that was because 'I knew it would be hard' to pass in Congress. Vought said another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon.' Associated Press writers Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska, and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.
Business Insider
24 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Stephen Colbert's 'The Late Show' on CBS is getting canceled. Lawmakers want to know if it's because of his political views.
CBS announced on Thursday that "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" will be canceled after next year, ending a series that has been running for more than three decades. Colbert announced the talk show's cancellation on Thursday via a clip of his new episode, posted on Instagram. "Before we start the show, I want to let you know something I found out just last night," he said. "Next year will be our last season. The network will be ending 'The Late Show' in May." His announcement was followed by a long wave of boos from the audience. Colbert took over as host of the talk show previously helmed by David Letterman in 2015, and has been running it for the last 10 years. The show was first aired in 1993. CBS executives said in a statement to The New York Times on Thursday that the cancellation was "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night." "It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount," the statement to the NYT added. Ratings from the American audience measurement company, Nielsen, seen by several news outlets, show that "The Late Show" performed well in its timeslot. The show notched 2.417 million viewers across 41 new episodes, and was the only late-night show to gain viewers in 2025. The cancellation comes shortly after Paramount, on July 1, agreed to pay President Donald Trump a $16 million settlement over a lawsuit the president filed against it. The lawsuit accused CBS's "60 Minutes" of "deceptive editing" of his interview with presidential rival Kamala Harris. Colbert referenced the settlement in an episode on July 14, titled "A Big Bribe." Making a joke about the settlement, he said, "As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I am offended, and I don't know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company. But just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help." Lawmakers have sounded out concerns about the show's cancellation, asking CBS if the decision was political in nature. Sen. Adam Schiff of California was one of the first to comment on it. "Just finished taping with Stephen Colbert who announced his show was cancelled," Schiff wrote in a late Thursday evening X post. "If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better," Schiff added. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts released a statement just hours after the cancellation announcement. "CBS canceled Colbert's show just three days after Colbert called out CBS owner Paramount for its $16 settlement with Trump — a deal that looks like bribery. America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons," Warren said. Trump has been a regular topic on Colbert's show — particularly during his opening monologues. He's also touched on some of the administration's major scandals, including in his Wednesday episode, where he mentioned Trump and the disgraced financier, Jeffrey Epstein.
