Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration, for Now, to End Biden-Era Migrant Program
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration, for now, to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian program designed to give temporary residence to more than 500,000 immigrants from countries facing war and political turmoil.
The court's order was unsigned and provided no reasoning, which is typical when the justices rule on emergency applications.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, saying the majority had not given enough consideration to '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 ruling, which exposes some migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti to possible deportation, is the latest in a series of emergency orders by the justices in recent weeks responding to a flurry of applications asking the court to weigh in on the administration's attempts to unwind Biden-era immigration policies.
Friday's ruling focused on former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s expansion of a legal mechanism for immigration called humanitarian parole, in which migrants from countries facing instability are allowed to enter the United States and quickly secure work authorization, provided they have a private sponsor to take responsibility for them.
Earlier this month, the justices allowed the Trump administration to remove deportation protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to remain in the United States under a program known as Temporary Protected Status.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities' push to object to state taxes on religious grounds
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a Catholic Charities chapter in Wisconsin to secure an exemption from certain state taxes in a decision that could expand the type of religious entities entitled to tax breaks under the First Amendment's protections for religion. It was the latest in a series of decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years that have sided with religious groups on everything from public funding for sectarian schools to allowing coaches to offer private prayers on the field after high school football games. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous court. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one. When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' This story is breaking and will be updated.
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion Show Caption Hide Caption Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet" Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only! WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 5 said Wisconsin should not have denied a tax exemption to a Catholic Charities chapter, the latest in a series of rulings the justices have decided in favor of faith groups. The court unanimously ruled that the state violated the First Amendment's protection for religion and discriminated against the religious organization in Wisconsin. "There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. Wisconsin's law, which is similar to most states' and the federal government's, grants exemptions from its unemployment insurance program for certain church-controlled organizations that are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Wisconsin said the Catholic Charities bureau and four affiliates had to participate in the state's unemployment benefits system because the work being performed is primarily secular, even if it's motivated by religious belief. There's no religious instruction during job training, placement and coaching offered to disabled people through the affiliates, the state said. Neither employees nor the people they serve have to be Catholic. The Catholic Charities bureau and their affiliates are incorporated separately from the diocese. The purpose of the exemption is to keep the government from violating the First Amendment by getting too involved in a church's employment decisions. Because an employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits if the person was fired for misconduct, Wisconsin doesn't want to have to decide the legitimacy of a firing that was based on matters of religious faith and doctrine. More: Pride puppies and a charter school: a look at the blockbuster religion cases at the Supreme Court Catholic Charities, which was represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued it was being discriminated against because – unlike other religious organizations – the charitable arm is incorporated separately from the diocese and because it offers its services without proselytizing. Wisconsin's attorney pointed out that Catholic Charities had participated in the state's unemployment system since 1971 without requesting an exemption. Its initial registration described the nature of its operations as 'charitable,' 'educational,' and 'rehabilitative,' not 'religious,' according to filings. Colin T. Roth, assistant attorney general for Wisconsin, warned that a broad exemption policy could leave more than 1 million employees in the country who work for religiously affiliated hospitals outside of the unemployment benefits system. If fewer employers pay into the system, Roth and outside municipal groups said, states might choose to shut down all religious exemptions. Catholic Charities said it prefers to protect employees through the church's unemployment program. The maximum weekly benefits are the same as the state's program and can be more generous and received more quickly, according to the church. Labor rights groups say the church's unemployment program is not as good because it's not backed up by the government if funds run out. And workers in a private system are ineligible for supplemental federal benefits such as those provided during the pandemic.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Timing of California's $750 Million Film Tax Credit Plan in Doubt as State Budget Cuts Weigh Down Process
As a pair of bills to expand California's film tax credit passed their first floor votes in Sacramento this week, confidence is high that the much-touted $750 million benefit will soon be on the way for productions that will keep jobs for entertainment workers in Hollywood. But there isn't a clear answer on what 'soon' means, as the co-authors of the California Film & TV Jobs Act are racing to get their bill past the remaining legislative hurdles and get funding approved. The budget process has been thrown into uncertainty by factors ranging from the Trump Administration's tariffs to Los Angeles wildfire recovery efforts that have left lawmakers unclear on whether the full amount — about double the current tax credit — will be funded. State Assembly members Isaac Bryan and Rick Chavez Zbur, two co-authors of the Jobs Act, told TheWrap on Wednesday they are very confident that the bills that would expand the types of productions eligible for tax incentives and offer a 35% tax rate to Los Angeles-based productions will pass, along with the proposed increase of the program's cap from $330 million to $750 million. 'Our colleagues know we can't let this industry slip,' Bryan said, adding: '$750 million, while it's a lot of money and a desperately needed amount of money to keep the jobs that this industry is producing, is a small fraction of our overall budget.' Language that called for that cap increase was removed from the two Jobs Act bills during budget committee hearings prior to their nearly unanimous floor vote passage this week. But the lawmakers said the language was ultimately unnecessary as the cap increase is still included in Gov. Gavin Newsom's revised budget proposal released last month. Despite Bryan's remark, the local industry has already slipped significantly. Only about 20 percent of US movie and TV production is now made in California, a steep slide over the past 20 years, according to industry studies. FilmLA, which tracks production in Los Angeles, has said that 2024 was the worst year on record for local filming, with the first quarter of 2025 declining another 22% year over year. The state's film commission says that between 2020 and 2024 California lost an estimated $1.6 billion in production spending due to limited tax credit funding. But despite the urgency, apparently nothing in government is easy. Newsom first threw his support behind the cap increase in October and has repeatedly expressed his support for it, including after President Trump knocked Hollywood for a loop last month floating the possibility of levying tariffs against productions shot outside of the U.S. The question is when exactly that money earmarked for the tax incentive program will get final approval in Sacramento and give the California Film Commission the green light to begin the process of implementing the new program. That timetable is unclear because the tax credit legislation, while widely supported, is one of dozens of budget items that Sacramento has to get through, some of which are still the topic of protracted debate. California is in a race against time as other states and overseas locations update their own programs to stay ahead in a global competition for production money. Last week, Louisiana's legislature, months after lowering the cap of its program to $125 million, passed a bill that raised the base tax rate for productions that shoot there to 25%, with an additional 15% credit available towards labor costs if Louisiana residents are hired. Last month, New York raised its program cap to $800 million amidst increased competition for local productions from New Jersey. Bryan explains that the main budget bill that state law requires the legislature to pass and for the governor to approve by June 15 is followed by a period in which the legislature handles 'trailer bills,' which work out the finer details on certain areas of state spending.'The first stab at the budget on the deadline is the bigger, overarching framework of how we're spending the biggest resources to uplift and protect Californians,' Bryan explained, adding that previous changes to the state production tax incentive got final approval through trailer bills passed after that main deadline. The challenge for Bryan, Zbur and other legislators trying to keep Hollywood a major priority is that the trailer bill process is expected to be even more complicated than it usually is, and it's not clear at this time when exactly the trailer bill for the incentive program could come up for a vote. That's because a lot of the guidance that lawmakers have on how much revenue and federal funding it will have for the year has been upended by uncertainty on Wall Street over Trump's tariffs – which affects state capital gains taxes – and suspension of property taxes in parts of Los Angeles affected by January's wildfires, among other factors. Newsom's revised budget projected a $12 billion deficit, leading the governor to call for cuts in a wide range of areas outside of Hollywood, including changes to Medi-Cal that could result in millions of residents, including those who are undocumented, losing coverage. As the larger budget debate plays out over the coming month, the Jobs Act co-authors say they are meeting with legislative leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, to discuss ways to expedite the bills as they head to opposite houses following their first floor votes. If the Jobs Act goes through the usual legislative process of waiting for committee and floor votes, it is likely they would not reach Newsom's desk for signature until the end of the legislative session in September, meaning that the expanded incentive program might not get into full swing until early 2026. While the co-authors haven't settled on a course of action, one option would be to try to make the bills an 'urgency measure,' which would require a two-thirds majority vote to pass but would mean that the bills could take effect immediately once passed rather than on Jan. 1 of the following year. Given that both the Assembly and Senate bills only received one vote against on their first floor votes, the Jobs Act has the support to be enacted faster if this option is taken. 'Bottom line, we are working with the leadership to ensure that the incentive program changes are passed this summer, and come into effect this summer,' Zbur said. The faster Sacramento gives the green light, the better. Once that happens, the California Film Commission still has months of work ironing out how the expanded program will be implemented, including how that $750 million is allocated to different parts of the entertainment industry ranging from feature films to prestige TV dramas and indie productions, as well as new categories like animated projects and half-hour live-action programs that would become eligible with the expansion. For now, the next round of applications for the tax credit program, which opens later this month, will operate under the existing rules and with the current benefit of a 20% tax rate on eligible spending. The post Timing of California's $750 Million Film Tax Credit Plan in Doubt as State Budget Cuts Weigh Down Process appeared first on TheWrap.
