Judge issues temporary restraining order allowing Marshall student to stay in US
A judge has issued a temporary restraining order allowing a Marshall University graduate student to stay in the country after the Trump administration said it was canceling his student visa.
The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia filed the lawsuit against administration officials on behalf of S.V., who is a citizen of India. S.V. was weeks away from graduating with a data science degree when he got word that the Trump administration was revoking his student visa. He later learned that he was 'identified in a criminal records check,' an ACLU news release said.
More than 1,000 international students at 160 colleges and universities across the country have had their visas revoked or their legal status terminated since March, according to a report by the Associated Press. That includes students at colleges and universities in West Virginia.
S.V. was sentenced to probation in 2020 in Indiana for operating a vehicle under the influence, a misdemeanor, according to the ACLU. He left the United States and returned in 2023 to study at Marshall. The ACLU argues that having been identified in a criminal record check is not legal ground for terminating a visa.
In the order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Robert Chambers ordered the Trump administration to restore S.V.'s F-1 student visa status and prohibit officials from arresting, detaining or transferring him out of the court's jurisdiction.
'ACLU-WV won't stop fighting until his status is permanently restored,' the organization said in a statement.
The judge has set a hearing in the case for 10 a.m. May 7 at the federal court house in Huntington.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
Why Zelensky and European Leaders Are Still Pushing for a Cease-Fire in Ukraine
In the public portions of their meeting with President Trump on Monday, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders made a concerted effort to project solidarity with Mr. Trump's negotiating position in talks with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine. One issue was an exception: Whether any route to a peace deal must be preceded by a cease-fire. Last week, Mr. Trump agreed with European leaders that no negotiations could begin in earnest without first halting the fighting in Ukraine. But after meeting President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday in Alaska, Mr. Trump dropped his support for that idea, essentially adopting Mr. Putin's position. European leaders say that is a mistake. At the start of one meeting with Mr. Trump on Monday, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, put it bluntly. 'I can't imagine the next meeting will take place without a cease-fire,' Mr. Merz said, referring to hopes that Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky may meet. 'So let's work on that and let's try to put pressure on Russia.' Mr. Merz repeated the position to reporters at the start of a news conference after the meeting: 'A genuine negotiation can only take place at a summit in which Ukraine itself participates,' he said. 'Such a summit is only conceivable if the guns fall silent. I reiterated this demand today.' Why are Mr. Merz and his counterparts so insistent on a cease-fire? There are several reasons, some obvious. They want the killing to stop, including the mounting civilian death toll. Such pauses have historically provided crucial trust and stability that allows genuine peace negotiations to begin. But in the case of Ukraine, the presence of a cease-fire would also change the balance of power. Russia is currently making slow, but appreciable, gains on the battlefield, taking steadily more Ukrainian territory. That gives Mr. Putin an advantage when it comes to the terms of a peace deal, including, likely, decisions about ceding some portions of Ukraine to Russia. A cease-fire would stop that Russian momentum, allow Ukraine's army time to regroup and rearm, and change the dynamics of the peace talks. That's why Mr. Putin doesn't want one — and it's a big reason European leaders like Mr. Merz do.
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
Securing Postwar Ukraine, Even With Trump's Pledge to Help, Is Complex
President Trump has pleased Ukrainian and European leaders by promising American involvement in providing security guarantees for Ukraine if a peace settlement with Russia ever comes together. Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, pronounced himself 'excited' over Mr. Trump's public commitment on Monday at a summit at the White House to some sort of security guarantee, a pledge that the Europeans have been eagerly seeking. He called it 'a breakthrough.' But exactly what those guarantees would involve remains ambiguous. Officials promised more clarity in the weeks to come as defense ministry planners come to grips with the considerable complications of turning a broad promise into realistic options. Mr. Trump said that European countries would be the 'first line of defense' in providing security guarantees for Ukraine, but Washington will 'help them out, we'll be involved.' He added later: 'European nations are going to take a lot of the burden. We're going to help them and we're going to make it very secure,' he said. He did not explain how. Some involved, like Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni of Italy and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, spoke of an 'Article 5-like' guarantee outside of NATO itself, though based on the commitment in the alliance's charter that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all of them. But it is hard to imagine that NATO itself would not be quickly implicated if any member state of the alliance with troops stationed in Ukraine gets into a shooting war with Russia. Nor is it a given that Russia would change its stance and agree that troops from NATO countries could be stationed in Ukraine under a form of a de facto NATO-backed guarantee. Many analysts, like John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, believe that Russia's effort to control Ukraine is based on its stated desire to stop NATO enlargement for countries Moscow considers part of its sphere, especially those that were part of the Soviet Union. In that view, Moscow invaded Ukraine to block NATO and ensure the country does not become a member. So the idea that Russia would agree to let NATO country troops station themselves in Ukraine after fighting a long war to prevent them from being there in the first place is complicated at best. 'Our goal is to ensure that we build the security guarantees together with the U.S.,' President Alexander Stubb of Finland said Monday night. 'I should think that Russia's view of security guarantees is quite different from our view.' Russian officials rejected the idea even before Monday's meeting. A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said Russia 'categorically rejects any scenario that envisages the appearance in Ukraine of a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries.' Some European officials and analysts see Mr. Trump's new commitment to security guarantees as a way of convincing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to agree to Russian demands to give up the rest of the eastern Donetsk region that is not occupied by Russian forces, in order to stop the war that Russia is slowly winning. That argument suggests that what matters is a sovereign Ukraine, its future assured, even if Russia retains the 20 percent or more of Ukrainian territory it has occupied since 2014. The territory issue did not even come up in the meeting with European leaders on Monday, according to Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany. Europeans were relieved, but the question has hardly gone away and underlies what may be part of a final settlement. The land that the Kremlin wants in Donetsk alone is considerably larger than the total amount of land Russia has managed to take since November 2022, and at great cost in lives. So it would be a major gift to Moscow and a major sacrifice for Mr. Zelensky, who rejects the idea out of hand. Instead, the focus in the White House was on security guarantees. Mr. Zelensky warned of the lack of details on Sunday and stressed that the proposal still needed to be worked out. 'We need security to work in practice,' he said. Some work has been done on what a security guarantee might look like under a 'coalition of the willing' led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain and President Emmanuel Macron of France, with a small headquarters in Paris. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has now been charged with coordination from the American side. But France, Britain and tiny Estonia are the only countries that have indicated that they could deploy troops in a post-settlement Ukraine. Germany has hesitated and major frontline states like Poland have refused to take part. The Poles, mistrustful of Russia, have said that they want to keep their troops at home for their own defense, and where they are genuinely protected by NATO's Article 5, rather than vulnerable to incidents or accidents that Russia might use to weaken or divide peacekeepers. A likely solution could be about 15,000 to 20,000 European troops being deployed in Ukraine, said Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary general who has studied options for such security guarantees. Troops would be away from the front lines, in support of the Ukrainian military, already the largest and most experienced in Europe, with some 900,000 people under arms. The Europeans would represent a 'reassurance force.' Other countries or even the United Nations could provide separate, unarmed frontline observers, aided by satellite and drone surveillance. The United States would be asked to provide operational intelligence, including satellite cover and information about Russian intentions or troop movements, and perhaps train Ukrainian forces, but without troops on the ground. But 'if things go sour,' said Mr. Grand, now an analyst with the European Council on Foreign Relations, 'it would be good to have a public commitment that the Americans would not sit on their hands.' Ideally that would include a vow to use U.S. air power and naval assets. The Europeans also want to maintain an American troop presence on the eastern flank of NATO, especially if European troops are deployed in Ukraine, potentially weakening NATO's own deterrence. Europe's ready forces are relatively small, so a deployment of some of them in Ukraine would shrink NATO's defense posture. Ideally, Mr. Grand said, Mr. Rutte and the new NATO and American supreme commander in Europe, Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, would be charged with helping the coalition of the willing with planning. NATO is experienced at coordinating different country forces and assets, Mr. Grand said, as it has done in previous non-NATO conflicts, like Libya. 'And none of this needs to be negotiated with Putin,' Mr. Grand said. Russia could be informed but not allowed a veto, he said. He added that Moscow's reluctance or willingness to accept such guarantees 'will be a test of its good faith.' Still, Mr. Grand said, 'what worries me is who in Europe is willing to do something.' Mr. Starmer has made vague promises but the British military is small, and a commitment to Ukraine is risky and expensive and has no end date. That would normally involve rotational forces with one group in country, one group training to go and one group returning. And it would require materiel support, from arms to barracks, including armor, air defenses, air power and naval power on standby. Mr. Macron kept his enthusiasm in check after the meeting. Security guarantees come with a peace settlement, and Mr. Putin wants to continue the war, he said. With many details unsettled, it was clear that a deal to end the war is not at hand. 'Do I think Putin wants peace? I think the answer is no,' he said. 'It's far from over.' Johanna Lemola contributed reporting from Helsinki.
Washington Post
a minute ago
- Washington Post
The White House is making the homeless crisis worse
Jacob Fuller is an organizer and policy writer based in Philadelphia. In asserting control over the D.C. police force and deploying National Guard troops and federal agents, President Donald Trump has named removing homeless encampments as a top priority. If only he brought this level of urgency to preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place. Over the past decade, the number of homeless individuals has increased each year, at a rate that has only accelerated. Last year, rates jumped by 18 percent, totaling 771,480 unhoused individuals in the United States. And the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Cuts to health care and food programs, soaring housing costs, and newer proposals by the Trump administration to pare back housing assistance all threaten to worsen homelessness — not just in Washington, but around the country. For most individuals and families, homelessness is a temporary situation — typically resolved within weeks or days. Programs to prevent and quickly resolve housing crises matter, as prolonged experiences with homelessness can make individual cases even harder to address. Homelessness in the United States might feel like an intractable problem, but it has not always been on an upward trajectory. Following the 2008 financial crash that led to mass unemployment and housing insecurity, President Barack Obama signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act into law. Among its many features, it authorized $2.2 billion for programs focused on quickly putting people back into homes and keeping at-risk people from sliding into homelessness in the first place. The economy was hit hard by the recession, but from 2010 to 2016, homelessness decreased yearly, ultimately achieving a 15 percent reduction nationally, with veteran homelessness cut in half. Federally backed housing initiatives were widely credited with helping drive the trend. These gains were already fragile and contingent on appropriate funding levels for effective programs, but the spread of covid-19 kicked the problem into high gear. As housing costs skyrocketed and inflation soared, rates of homelessness followed, especially as pandemic-era aid ran out. Housing costs remain at record levels, and rates of consumer debt have soared, cutting the ability of millions to save money for a crisis. Now, only months into the second Trump administration, what was already a crisis shows signs of developing into a total calamity. In budget recommendations for 2026, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed slashing federal rental assistance by 40 percent, functionally eliminating voucher programs and a two-year time limit on federal rental assistance, putting as many as 1.4 million Americans at risk of losing their homes. In my conversations with experts working in homeless services across the nation, it's clear we are shockingly unprepared for what's coming. 'Right now, we're in pretty terrifying times in terms of not knowing what's going to happen to our federal grants,' said Haven Wheelock, a harm-reduction manager at the Oregon-based nonprofit Outside In. And though the state's funding might theoretically help fill in the gaps, its legislature is bracing for cuts to Medicaid that will further strain budgets. Some of these changes might not show up in federal statistics at first glance. According to Dennis Culhane, professor of social policy at the University of Pennsylvania, a large degree of the observed 2024 increase in homelessness was driven by Republican governors shipping migrants to sanctuary cities that moved them into homeless shelters before they could be transitioned to other housing. With the migrant crisis receding, he predicted, those numbers will drop. But chronic homelessness — extended periods of homelessness typically defined as lasting a year or longer — has gone up significantly and is more at risk. From 2020 to 2024, the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness increased by 38 percent, and getting them back into homes is significantly harder than resolving temporary or at-risk cases. Prolonged homelessness can often lead to drug use, which prevents access to services that require sobriety to qualify and increases the likelihood of traumatic brain injuries that could impact an individual's ability to receive care. Though these measures would probably devastate individuals at risk of homelessness, they would also be catastrophic to the communities where they live. In cities, homelessness has been shown to contribute to decreased foot traffic to downtown areas where it's perceived to be high, might decrease ridership of public transportation, and can threaten public health and safety. People in cities know what it's like to see a sudden increase in people experiencing mental health and substance crises, and how even small numbers of unhoused people can change the perception of a neighborhood. 'When they begin self-medicating, they begin this cycle where they may end up in an unstable space, both mentally and environmentally, [and] that will negatively impact the entire community as a whole,' said Sarah Laurel, executive director at Philadelphia-based nonprofit Savage Sisters. She expressed concern for those currently in her recovery program because getting kicked off Medicaid will mean many might go without crucial medication. We don't have to let this happen — even modest investments can help make a difference. New visions such as the pro-housing 'abundance' movement, as well as a rise in candidates making affordability a central issue, present possibilities for a brighter future with more accessible routes to renting or owning a home. But investment in new and affordable housing is only one part of the picture. To help ensure that individuals who find themselves displaced can quickly bounce back, government assistance programs such as 'housing first' strategies, rental aid and vouchers must be renewed and expanded.
