Latest news with #1stUSCircuitCourtofAppeals
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Over 5 lakh face deportation risk as Trump gets go-ahead to end legal status of migrants from US Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending temporary legal protections for more than 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The decision raises the number of migrants newly at risk of deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that had blocked the administration's effort to terminate the humanitarian parole program. In a separate case earlier this month, the court allowed the removal of about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants, marking the second time the court has sided with the Trump administration in its push to roll back Biden-era immigration policies. The court issued its order without explanation, which is typical on the emergency docket. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning of the serious consequences the decision could have on affected migrants. The administration filed an emergency appeal after a federal judge in Boston, Indira Talwani, had stopped the government from ending the program. Judge Talwani had ruled that revoking the protections early would force migrants to either flee the country or face possible deportation. While she allowed revocation on a case-by-case basis, the administration argued that the program was granted en masse and should be ended the same way. Solicitor general D John Sauer called individual review a 'gargantuan task' that would slow the government's ability to remove migrants. Justice Jackson echoed concerns from Judge Talwani, writing in her dissent that the court's order would cause 'needless human suffering' before a final legal judgment is reached. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The temporary parole program had allowed up to 30,000 people per month from the four countries to enter the US for two years, provided they had a financial sponsor and paid their own travel expenses. These migrants fled instability and dangers in their home countries. The decision also affects other groups covered under humanitarian parole, including Afghans, Ukrainians, and Central American children. The Biden administration had used this authority, in effect since 1952, more extensively than any previous president. Homeland security secretary Kristi Noem cancelled an 18-month extension of the parole protections, giving migrants 30 days to leave unless covered by other legal protections. This marks the first time such a large group has lost parole status at once, with advocates calling it 'the largest mass illegalisation event in modern American history.' The Supreme Court's order is not a final decision, but it does mean that the protections will be lifted while the case moves forward. The case now goes back to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
France 24
3 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
US Supreme Court gives Trump green light to strip legal status of 500,000 migrants
The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the US Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio, including those with legal status under the humanitarian parole program, were abducting and eating pets during a debate with then-President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the high court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims'. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what US District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of former Democratic president Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. 'Gargantuan task' Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the US at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history'. The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
Euronews
3 days ago
- Politics
- Euronews
US court lets Trump end protections for nearly 1 million immigrants
The US Supreme Court has again cleared the way on Friday for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. The administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the protection programme. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the high court's order is "to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims." Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what US District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be cancelled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always intended to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court intervention. The Trump administration claimed that Biden granted parole en masse, and the law does not require it to be ended on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a "gargantuan task," and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the US with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with "instability, dangers and deprivations," as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the US at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves "the largest mass illegalisation event in modern American history." The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act. Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people and, after taking office, has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the US.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from seventh grader who wore ‘two genders' shirt to school
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from a Massachusetts middle school student who was forced to remove a T-shirt that claimed 'there are only two genders.' Two conservative justices – Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – dissented from the decision to not hear the case. So long as the appeals court's decision is on the books, Alito wrote, 'thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this court's attention.' Liam Morrison wore the shirt to Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, in 2023 to 'share his view that gender and sex are identical.' School administrators asked him to remove it and, when he declined, sent him home for the day. Weeks later, he wore the same shirt but covered the words 'only two' with a piece of tape on which he wrote 'censored.' Morrison and his family sued the district in federal court, asserting a violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court ruled against him and the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. In a landmark 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court affirmed students' First Amendment rights at school, but the court qualified those rights, allowing school administrators to regulate the speech if it 'materially disrupts' instruction at the school. The Vietnam-era case permitted a group of students to wear black armbands in protest of the war. The appeals court held that schools can regulate a student's speech under Tinker if it 'assertedly demeans characteristics of personal identity' of other students if the message is 'reasonably forecasted' to poison the 'educational atmosphere.' Morrison, who is represented by the religious legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that decision 'sidelined' Tinker and 'gave near-total deference to the school's determination of what speech demeans protected characteristics and substantially disrupts its operations.' In their written response to the Supreme Court, school officials noted they are aware of transgender and gender-nonconforming students 'who had experienced serious mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation, related to their treatment by other students based on their gender identities' and that those struggles could impact the students' ability to learn.
Roya News
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Roya News
US appeals court blocks Trump's bid to end legal status for 400,000 migrants
A US federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration's request to move forward with revoking temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled on Monday that it would not pause a lower court's decision that halted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from terminating a two-year humanitarian parole program created during the Biden administration. This program had allowed migrants from the four countries to live and work legally in the US. The administration argued that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem had the authority to end the program outright, claiming that the court order forces the federal government to 'retain hundreds of thousands of aliens in the country against its will.' However, the panel of three judges—all appointed by Democratic presidents—concluded that Noem 'has not at this point made a 'strong showing' that her categorical termination of plaintiffs' parole is likely to be sustained on appeal.' Karen Tumlin, an attorney with the Justice Action Center, which led the legal challenge, welcomed the court's ruling. She described the administration's move as 'reckless and illegal.' The case stems from a March 25 announcement in the Federal Register, in which DHS declared its decision to end the humanitarian parole for nearly 400,000 migrants. The policy reversal prompted immediate legal challenges from immigration advocates, who argued that the change lacked individualized review and undermined protections previously granted. On April 25, US District Judge Indira Talwani temporarily blocked the policy change, stating that DHS had made a legal misstep by assuming that allowing parole to run its course would prevent the government from fast-tracking deportations.
