US appeals court temporarily upholds protected status for Afghans
Monday's order by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted an administrative stay on the termination until July 21, following a request from immigration advocacy organization CASA.
The group's lawsuit against the US Department of Homeland Security challenged the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Afghans and Cameroonians unveiled by the administration in April.
The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time of the April announcement, it had said conditions in Afghanistan and Cameroon no longer merited the protected status.
The TPS program provides protection against deportation and work permits for periods of six to 18 months to those from countries stricken by natural disaster, armed conflict, or other extraordinary events.
The status can be renewed by the homeland security secretary. Trump's effort to end most TPS enrollment during his first term from 2017 to 2021 was thwarted by federal courts.
CASA sought an emergency stay on Monday, when the protection of Afghans was set to be terminated, while that of Cameroonians was set to end on August 4, the court document showed.
The group said the step was arbitrary and discriminatory and would cause 'irreparable harm' to those affected, as it sought a stay while the appeals proceed.
The administration has time until 11:59 p.m. ET on Wednesday (3:59 a.m. GMT on Thursday) to respond.
The stay was not a final decision, but gave time for the legal challenge, said Shawn VanDiver, founder of AfghanEvac, the main coalition of veterans and advocacy groups that coordinates resettlements with the government.
'AfghanEvac stands firmly behind the legal challenge and calls on DHS and the Trump administration to immediately reverse course and extend TPS protections,' VanDiver said in an email.
The United States evacuated more than 82,000 Afghans from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover in 2021, of whom more than 70,000 entered the US on temporary 'parole,' or legal entry for two years.
Rights advocates have said many Afghans who helped the United States during its war in Afghanistan would be targets of the Taliban if they returned home.
Particularly at risk would be women, whose rights the Taliban have curbed since their return to power after the US withdrawal, rights groups say.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Saudi Gazette
2 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
'Not our war' — Trump's Nato weapons deal for Ukraine sparks MAGA anger
WASHINGTON — Some conservative members of Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement have reacted angrily to the president's plans to sell weapons to Nato, arguing it is a betrayal of his promise to end US involvement in foreign wars. On Monday, Trump said he would send weapons to Ukraine via Nato, while also threatening Russia with more tariffs if a deal to end the war is not reached in 50 days. Republican Congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene, a key Trump ally, and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon are among those who have criticised the decision, with Bannon telling his podcast listeners that Ukraine is a "European war". The White House has emphasised that Europe will pay for the US-made weapons. In an interview with the New York Times, Greene - an isolationist member of Congress from Georgia who has been one of the most loyal Trump supporters on Capitol Hill - said the move was at odds with what she had promised voters on the campaign trail. "It's not just Ukraine; it's all foreign wars in general and a lot of foreign aid," she said. "This is what we campaigned on. This is what I promised also to my district. This is what everybody voted for. And I believe we have to maintain the course."Trump sought to emphasise that the weapons would be paid for rather than given as direct aid, saying on Monday: "We're not buying it, but we will manufacture it, and they're going to be paying for it."But in a rare public disagreement with the president, Greene expressed scepticism that US taxpayers would ultimately avoid bearing any cost and, in a post on social media, criticised "backdoor deals through Nato"."Without a shadow of a doubt, our tax dollars are being used," she told the New York Times, arguing that indirect costs such as US training missions and contributions to Nato qualify as US involvement."I said it on every rally stage: no more money to Ukraine. We want peace. We just want peace for those people," she said. "And guess what? People haven't changed."One former Trump campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to Politico, said Europe's purchase of the weapons "mitigates" the anger from Trump's isolationist supporters."But we still hate it," the official said. "This is not our war, and escalation isn't in America's interest."Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Trump, said on his War Room podcast that "Ukraine is getting so dangerous"."It's a European war. Let Europe deal with it," he said. "They have the resources. They have the manpower.""We're about to arm people we have literally no control over," Bannon said of Ukraine. "This is old-fashioned, grinding war in the bloodlands of Europe - and we're being dragged into it."In a statement quoted by Politico, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said that Trump's MAGA base "aren't panicans like the media"."They trust in Trump, and they know that this president is restoring peace through strength."The BBC has contacted the White House for comment.A White House official who spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity disagreed that the president's base opposed his moves. They pointed to one recent poll that suggested nearly two-thirds of Trump voters support continuing to send arms to in the Trump administration have also defended the president's decision, with Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby writing on X that Trump's "America First message is that our alliances have to be fair and equitable"."This is eminently reasonable but was treated for many years as heresy," he added. "Yet now with the historic Nato commitment we see that it can work."That recent commitment from Nato leaders to ramp up defence spending to 5% of their economic output was praised by Trump supporters on Monday, who argued that even with the new weapons deal Europe was taking on more responsibility for its in an exclusive interview with the BBC on Monday, just hours after he met Nato chief Mark Rutte at the White House, Trump said the alliance was now "paying its own bills".He affirmed his support for the organization's common defence principle, and said he was "disappointed but not done" with Russia's Vladimir president said that he had thought a deal to end the war in Ukraine was on the cards with Russia four different times. — BBC
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
US inflation accelerated last month to highest level since February
Inflation rose last month to its highest level in four months as the cost of gas, food, and groceries rose, reversing several months of cooling price pressures. Consumer prices rose 2.7 percent in June from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Tuesday, up from an annual increase of 2.4 percent in May. On a monthly basis, prices climbed 0.3 percent from May to June after rising just 0.1 percent the previous month. Worsening inflation poses a political challenge for President Donald Trump, who promised during last year's presidential campaign to immediately lower costs. The sharp inflation spike of 2022-2023 was the worst in four decades and soured most Americans on former president Joe Biden's handling of the economy. Higher inflation will also likely heighten the Federal Reserve's reluctance to cut its short-term interest rate as Trump is loudly demanding. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core inflation increased 2.9 percent in June from a year earlier, up from 2.8 percent in May. On a monthly basis, it picked up 0.2 percent from May to June. Economists closely watch core prices because they typically provide a better sense of where inflation is headed. Inflation likely accelerated in June as sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports may have pushed up prices for electronics, appliances, and other goods, economists forecast. Consumer prices probably rose 2.6 percent last month from a year ago, up from an annual increase of 2.4 percent in May, according to data provider FactSet. The Labor Department will issue its inflation report at 8:30 a.m. eastern. On a monthly basis, prices likely rose 0.3 percent from May to June, the largest increase since January, economists project. Worsening inflation could pose a political challenge for President Donald Trump, who promised during last year's presidential campaign to immediately lower costs. The sharp inflation spike of 2022-2023 was the worst in four decades and soured most Americans on former president Joe Biden's handling of the economy. Faster price increases would also likely underscore the Federal Reserve's reluctance to cut its short-term interest rate as Trump is loudly demanding. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, inflation is forecast to have risen 3 percent in June from a year earlier, up from a 2.8 percent rise in May. On a monthly basis, it is also expected to have picked up 0.3 percent from May to June, according to FactSet. Economists closely watch core prices because they typically provide a better sense of where inflation is headed. Trump has imposed sweeping duties of 10 percent on all imports, plus 50 percent levies on steel and aluminum, 30 percent on goods from China, and 25 percent on imported cars. Just last week, the president threatened to hit the European Union with a new 30 percent tariff starting Aug. 1. So far, the tariffs haven't noticeably pushed up inflation, which has been mild for the past four months. Core inflation has fallen from 3.3 percent in January to 2.8 percent in May, though that is still above the Fed's 2 percent target. If inflation in June is much weaker than economists forecast, Trump will likely renew his demands that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell immediately reduce borrowing costs. Powell and other Fed officials have emphasized that they want to see how the economy evolves as the tariffs take effect before cutting their key short-term rate. The Fed chair has said that the duties could both push up prices and slow the economy–a tricky combination for the central bank since higher costs would typically lead the Fed to hike rates while a weaker economy often spurs it to reduce them. Trump on Monday said that Powell has been terrible and doesn't know what the hell he's doing. The president added that the economy was doing well despite Powell's refusal to reduce rates, but it would be nice if there were rate cuts because people would be able to buy housing a lot easier. Last week, White House officials also attacked Powell for cost overruns on the years-long renovation of two Fed buildings, which are now slated to cost 2.5 billion, roughly one-third more than originally budgeted. While Trump legally can't fire Powell just because he disagrees with his interest rate decisions, the Supreme Court has signaled he may be able to do so for cause, such as misconduct or mismanagement. While inflation was mild in May, there were already signs in last month's report that tariffs were starting to have some impact. The cost of furniture, appliances, toys, and tools rose, though those increases were offset by falling prices for airfares, hotels, and muted rises in rental costs. Some companies have said they have or plan to raise prices as a result of the tariffs, including Walmart, the world's largest retailer. Automaker Mitsubishi said last month that it was lifting prices by an average of 2.1 percent in response to the duties, and Nike has said it would implement surgical price hikes to offset tariff costs. But many companies have been able to postpone or avoid price increases after building up their stockpiles of goods this spring to get ahead of the duties. Other companies may have refrained from lifting prices while they wait to see whether the US is able to reach trade deals with other countries that lower the duties.
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Capital one, Walmart: A look at some of the consumer cases dropped by the cfpb under trump
In the nearly six months since the Trump administration has had control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the bureau's leadership has focused almost exclusively on rolling back any punishments, fines, and penalties made against companies during the Biden administration. In some cases, companies that were supposed to refund their customers or pay a penalty for unfair or deceptive practices are no longer bound to make their customers whole. Other companies facing charges of fraud of deceptive practices saw their lawsuits dropped in the early days of the Trump administration. Here are some of the Trump administration's rollbacks: Navy Federal Credit Union – The CFPB accused Navy Federal Credit Union, the nation's largest credit union, of having unfair and deceptive overdraft fee practices. NFCU settled with the bureau and agreed to refund its members $80 million in overdraft fees. However, when the new administration took over, NFCU asked to have the order dismissed, which the CFPB agreed to do without giving a reason. Navy Federal has not said whether it would refund their members, which are mostly service men and women, families, and veterans. Reduced overdraft fees – The CFPB proposed new regulations that would have reduced overdraft fees to $5 from their industry average of $27. The regulations focused on a bureau analysis on what it actually cost banks to make short-term loans to customers to cover those purchases when a customer's account went negative. The banking industry stood to lose billions of dollars in overdraft revenue, although banks have been weening themselves off overdraft fee revenue for years. The regulations were overturned by the Republican-controlled Congress in April. Capital One – In the last days of the Biden administration, the CFPB sued banking giant Capital One for allegedly cheating its customers out of $2 billion in interest payments on their savings accounts. The case involved a product that Capital One sold known as 360 Savings, which the bank advertised as having the best savings rate in the country. Capital One failed to tell some customers that it had another product with a higher savings rate. The case was dropped within days of the Trump administration taking over the bureau. Wal-Mart – The CFPB filed a lawsuit in December against Wal-Mart and workforce company Branch Messenger, accusing the companies of deceptively steering delivery drivers to open accounts with Branch in order for those employees to get instant access to their wages. However, the CFPB said these Branch accounts came with high fees and deceptive marketing and said Wal-Mart and Branch should return $10 million to harmed drivers. Both Wal-Mart and Branch denied the accusations. The lawsuit was dropped by the CFPB in the first weeks of the Trump administration. Zelle – The parent company of Zelle, the peer-to-peer payment system, as well as some of the nation's largest banks, were sued by the CFPB late last year over accusations they failed to protect hundreds of thousands of consumers from rampant fraud on Zelle in violation of consumer financial laws. The CFPB's lawsuit claimed hundreds of thousands of customers lost approximately $870 million in funds to fraud over the seven years that Zelle had been in existence. That lawsuit was dropped by the CFPB in March.
