Latest news with #Jackson
Yahoo
an hour ago
- General
- Yahoo
KBJ Blasts 'Botched' Supreme Court Ruling on Immigration Protections
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks the Supreme Court 'botched' a decision to allow the Trump administration to revoke the Temporary Protected Status protections of about 500,000 Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan immigrants. Jackson and fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor were the only two dissenters. 'The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm,' Jackson wrote in the dissent. 'And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives of and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.' TPS is a longstanding program that allowed those 500,000 immigrants to stay in the U.S. after they fled violence and risk in their home countries. After the Supreme Court's ruling, all of them are at high risk of sudden deportation. 'It is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage,' Jackson wrote.
Vox
an hour ago
- Politics
- Vox
The Supreme Court just gave 500,000 immigrants some truly awful news
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court handed down a very brief order on Friday, which effectively permits the Trump administration to strip half a million immigrants of their right to remain in the United States. The case is Noem v. Doe. Although the full Court did not explain why it reached this decision, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. As Jackson explains, the case involves 'nearly half a million Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan noncitizens' who are in the United States 'after fleeing their home countries.' The Department of Homeland Security previously granted these immigrants 'parole' status, which allows them to live in the United States for up to two years, and sometimes to work in this country lawfully. Shortly after Trump entered office, DHS issued a blanket order stripping these immigrants of their parole status, putting them at risk for removal. But, a federal district court blocked that order — ruling that DHS must decide whether each individual immigrant should lose their status on a case-by-case basis, rather than through an en masse order. Realistically, this district court order was unlikely to remain in effect indefinitely. In its brief to the justices, the Trump administration makes a strong argument that its decision to terminate these immigrants' status is legal, or, at least, that the courts cannot second-guess that decision. Among other things, the brief points to a federal law which provides that 'no court shall have jurisdiction to review' certain immigration-related decisions by the secretary of Homeland Security. And it argues that the secretary has the power to grant or deny parole because federal law gives them 'discretion' over who receives parole. Notably, Jackson's dissent does not question that the Trump administration is likely to prevail once this case is fully litigated. Instead, she argues that her Court's decision to effectively strip these immigrants of their status is premature. 'Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits,' Jackson writes, 'in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory.' Related The Supreme Court is manipulating its own calendar to lock GOP policies in place The primary disagreement between Jackson and her colleagues in the majority concerns the Court's aggressive use of its 'shadow docket' to benefit Trump and other conservative litigants. The shadow docket is a mix of emergency motions and other expedited matters that the justices decide without full briefing and oral argument. The Court typically only spends days or maybe a few weeks weighing whether to grant shadow docket relief, while it spends months or longer deciding cases on its ordinary docket. Since Jackson joined the Court in 2022, she's become the Court's most vocal internal critic of its frequent use of the shadow docket. As Jackson correctly notes in her Doe dissent, the Supreme Court has long said that a party seeking a shadow docket order blocking a lower court's decision must do more than demonstrate that they are likely to prevail. That party must also show that 'irreparable harm will befall them should we deny the stay.' When these two factors do not strongly tilt toward one party, the Court is also supposed to ask whether 'the equities and public interest' favor the party seeking a stay. Jackson criticizes her colleagues in the majority for abandoning these requirements. As she argues, the Trump administration has not shown an 'urgent need to effectuate blanket … parole terminations now.' She also argues that DHS 'does not identify any specific national-security threat or foreign-policy problem that will result' if these immigrants remain in the country for a few more months. And, even under the lower court's order, the government 'retains the ability to terminate … parole on a case-by-case basis should such a particular need arise.' Although the Court has never formally repudiated the requirement that parties seeking to stay a lower court order must prove irreparable harm, it often hands down shadow docket decisions that don't explicitly consider this requirement. Concurring in Labrador v. Poe (2024), Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that, in many shadow docket cases, 'this Court has little choice but to decide the emergency application by assessing likelihood of success on the merits.' So Kavanaugh, at least, has stated openly that there are some cases where he will rule solely based on which side he thinks should win, regardless of whether that side has proven irreparable harm. Kavanaugh's concurring opinion was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In the short term, the Doe decision could lead to many immigrants losing their protections. Long term, the most significant aspect of the decision involves an internal dispute about how fast the Court may move when it disagrees with a lower court decision.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Axios
Supreme Court allows Trump to end legal protections for 500,000 immigrants
The Trump administration can for now end a program that gave temporary protections to more than 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, the Supreme Court said Friday."? The big picture: In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the high court "plainly botched" its assessment and undervalued the "devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens" amid pending legal claims. Catch up quick: A federal judge in April temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking the Biden-era protections under the under the CHNV program. The parole programs had granted the immigrants temporary legal protections after they fled violence in their home countries. In a January order, Trump instructed the Department of Homeland Security to "[t]erminate all categorical parole programs" that he said were "contrary to the policies of the United States" established in his orders, including CHNV. Driving the news: The order from the court noted that Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from granting the application for a stay on the lower court's order. Jackson argued the government failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating harm, saying ending the program will have "devastating consequences. " "While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties," she wrote. Friction point: Solicitor general D. John Sauer argued in his request to the Supreme Court that Immigration and Nationality Act grants Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem authority to revoke parole and that District Judge Indira Talwani overstepped in her order. Talwani wrote in her April order that terminating legal status early for noncitizens who complied with DHS programs and lawfully entered the country without any case-by-case justification "undermines the rule of law." Flashback: Under former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the program allowed migrants to fly into the U.S. if they had a sponsor and passed security checks. Those who entered through the program could stay for up to two years.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court allows Trump to begin removing 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration's request to categorically revoke humanitarian parole for more than 530,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and order them out of the country. The court did not explain its order staying a lower court decision that temporarily blocked the administration's abrupt policy change. In March, the Department of Homeland Security revoked protections for migrants from five countries issued by the Biden administration. The agency gave them 30 days notice to leave the country unless they had legal protection under another program. MORE: What the Constitution, Supreme Court say about 'due process' for Trump deportees: ANALYSIS A number of migrants and immigrant advocacy groups sued over the move, alleging that federal law did not give DHS Secretary Kristi Noem discretion to categorically eliminate humanitarian protections -- only to do so on a case-by-case basis. A federal district court agreed. The high court's decision means the Trump administration can move forward with it's policy change even as the litigation continues in lower courts on the merits. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Jackson, writing in opposition, accused the court's majority of callously "undervalu[ing] 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. "Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits, in our legal system, success takes time," Jackson wrote, "and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory. I would have denied the Government's application because its harm-related showing is patently insufficient." Earlier this month, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to terminate "Temporary Protected Status" for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who were protected from deportation and allowed to work in the United States. MORE: Supreme Court allows White House to end protections for 350K Venezuelans for now While the administration's moved to restrict immigration and turn away refugees from countries like Afghanistan and Haiti, it recently accepted white South African refugees -- prompting criticism. The administration's falsely claimed a genocide is taking place against white Afrikaner farmers, which South Africa's president pushed back on during a meeting with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Supreme Court allows Trump to begin removing 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela originally appeared on
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump revoke safe-haven program for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on May 30 said the Trump administration can revoke for now the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Two of the court's three liberal justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor – dissented. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the 532,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "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 brief opinion was unsigned and did not include an explanation, as is common for action on emergency requests. The administration wants to cut short a humanitarian program that provided a two-year haven for migrants because of economic, security, political and health crises in their home countries. Lawyers for the migrants said half a million people lawfully in the country will become subject to deportation, in what it called the "largest mass illegalization event in modern American history." Labor unions and communities that have welcomed the migrants said they've filled gaps in key industries, including healthcare, construction and manufacturing. Nearly 20% of the workers at one automotive parts manufacturer are in the temporary program, according to labor unions. The Trump administration said it's determined the migrants' presence in the United States is "against the national interests" and the courts don't get to decide otherwise. The move is part of the President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration and push to ramp up deportations, including of noncitizens previously granted a legal right to live and work in the United States. The Biden administration hoped the program would deter migrants from those countries from trying to enter the country illegally. But the Trump administration cancelled people's work permits and deportation protections, arguing the program failed as a deterrent and makes it harder to enforce immigration laws for those already in the country. Immigrant rights groups challenged the change on behalf of the immigrants and their sponsors. A federal judge in Massachusetts said the abrupt curtailing of the program was based on a legal error, as the administration wrongly concluded that letting the temporary status naturally expire would foreclose the Homeland Security Department's ability to legally expedite their deportations. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, also said early cancellation of protections requires a case-by-case review for each participant. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed Talwani's decision to temporarily block mass cancellation. All three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. The Justice Department argued the lower courts are 'undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.' Lawyers for a group of cities and counties said the abrupt cancellation of the program "would case severe economic and societal harms." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court lets Trump revoke migrants' temporary status
