Latest news with #FourthCircuitCourt
The Independent
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Thousands of Afghans in the US face deportation after court refuses to extend their protected status
Thousands of Afghans in the U.S. are no longer protected from deportation after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the Trump administration's decision to end their legal status. A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia said in a ruling late Monday there was 'insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement" of the administration's decision not to extend Temporary Protected Status for people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. TPS for Afghans ended July 14, but was briefly extended by the appeals court through July 21 while it considered an emergency request for a longer postponement. The Department of Homeland Security in May said it was ending Temporary Protected Status for 11,700 people from Afghanistan in 60 days. That status — in place since 2022 — had allowed them to work and meant the government couldn't deport them. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy group, sued the administration over the TPS revocation for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon — those expire August 4, saying the decisions were racially motivated. A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn't grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out. A phone message for CASA on Tuesday was not immediately returned. Without an extension, TPS holders face a 'devastating choice -abandoning their homes, relinquishing their employment, and uprooting their lives to return to a country where they face the threat of severe physical harm or even death, or remaining in the United States in a state of legal uncertainty while they wait for other immigration processes to play out," CASA warned in court documents. In its decision on Monday, the appeals court said CASA had made a 'plausible' legal claim against the administration, and urged the lower court to move the case forward expeditiously. It also said many of the TPS holders from the two countries may be eligible for other legal protections that remain available to them. Temporary Protected Status can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people who face safety concerns in their home countries because of armed conflict, environmental disaster or other conditions. They can't be deported and can work legally in the U.S., but they don't have a pathway to citizenship. The status, however, is inherently precarious because it is up to the Homeland Security secretary to renew the protections regularly — usually every 18 months. The Trump administration has pushed to remove Temporary Protected Status from people from seven countries, with Venezuela and Haiti making up the biggest chunk of the hundreds of thousands of people affected. At the time that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the temporary protected status for Afghans, the department wrote in the decision that the situation in their home country was getting better.
Associated Press
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Thousands of Afghans in the US face deportation after court refuses to extend their protected status
Thousands of Afghans in the U.S. are no longer protected from deportation after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the Trump administration's decision to end their legal status. A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia said in a ruling late Monday there was 'insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement' of the administration's decision not to extend Temporary Protected Status for people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. TPS for Afghans ended July 14, but was briefly extended by the appeals court through July 21 while it considered an emergency request for a longer postponement. The Department of Homeland Security in May said it was ending Temporary Protected Status for 11,700 people from Afghanistan in 60 days. That status — in place since 2022 — had allowed them to work and meant the government couldn't deport them. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy group, sued the administration over the TPS revocation for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon — those expire August 4, saying the decisions were racially motivated. A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn't grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out. A phone message for CASA on Tuesday was not immediately returned. Without an extension, TPS holders face a 'devastating choice -abandoning their homes, relinquishing their employment, and uprooting their lives to return to a country where they face the threat of severe physical harm or even death, or remaining in the United States in a state of legal uncertainty while they wait for other immigration processes to play out,' CASA warned in court documents. In its decision on Monday, the appeals court said CASA had made a 'plausible' legal claim against the administration, and urged the lower court to move the case forward expeditiously. It also said many of the TPS holders from the two countries may be eligible for other legal protections that remain available to them. Temporary Protected Status can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people who face safety concerns in their home countries because of armed conflict, environmental disaster or other conditions. They can't be deported and can work legally in the U.S., but they don't have a pathway to citizenship. The status, however, is inherently precarious because it is up to the Homeland Security secretary to renew the protections regularly — usually every 18 months. The Trump administration has pushed to remove Temporary Protected Status from people from seven countries, with Venezuela and Haiti making up the biggest chunk of the hundreds of thousands of people affected. At the time that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the temporary protected status for Afghans, the department wrote in the decision that the situation in their home country was getting better.
New York Times
15-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Appeals Court Keeps Afghans' Deportation Protections in Place for Now
A federal appeals court on Monday temporarily blocked the Trump administration's move to terminate deportation protections for thousands of Afghans living in the United States. In a brief, unsigned order, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia stayed the ending of a program known as Temporary Protected Status for Afghan migrants until July 21 and gave the administration and an advocacy group suing the government a few extra days to submit arguments in the case. The Department of Homeland Security had announced in April that it intended to revoke the protections for nationals from Afghanistan and Cameroon. Many of the Afghans vulnerable to deportation without those protections were allowed into the United States after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Back under the Taliban, the country reasserted sharp limits on civil rights, particularly those of women, and has suffered severe famine and drought. The court's administrative stay was a small setback for the Trump administration's broad effort to revoke protections for migrants fleeing some of the world's most unstable and dangerous places, rollbacks aimed at fulfilling a Trump campaign pledge to end Temporary Protected Status. Hundreds of thousands of other immigrants who had been authorized to remain in the country through the program, including Haitians, Cubans, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, may also face deportation.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. The policy was implemented to disrupt "cisnormativity" and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Swoops In To Save Trump Firing Decision Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that "while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it." Read On The Fox News App "The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance," McHale said. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos "For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court's attention," he said. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students' preferred pronouns in schools. Scotus Rulings This Term Could Strengthen Religious Rights Protections, Expert Says Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year. Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state's high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes." The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the article source: Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
Fox News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. The policy was implemented to disrupt "cisnormativity" and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught. Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that "while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it." "The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance," McHale said. "For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court's attention," he said. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students' preferred pronouns in schools. Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year. Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state's high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes." The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S.
