Supreme Court Overrules District Court Judge Who Issued a (What Else?) Nationwide Injunction Against Deporting Venezuelans, Cubans, Hatians, and Nicaraugans

Get this: The statute at the heart of this dispute says that the president can grant "case by case" protections against deportations. Biden ignored this and protected all illegals from four countries -- Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

The district court is upholding Biden's grant of blanket immunity while requiring Trump to engage in "case by case" decisions to revoke the immunity. The law makes no requirement of a "case by case" determination for revoking immunity.

So, where the law demands the president to engage in particularlized, individualized case-by-case decision to grant immunity to deportation, the courts ignore it and let Biden give blanket immunity to millions.

When Trump acts to remove this illegal blanket immunity, the courts confabulate a judge-invented requirement of case-by-case consideration of each of the millions of illegals.

Sounds about right.

The Supreme Court overruled -- stayed -- the lower court's injunction, but that court will still rule "on the merits" at trial, allegedly, and I have no doubt which way this rogue criminal judge will rule. Remember, injunctions are pre-trial relief which are granted when a judge guesses how the trial will turn out, and who he wants to win.

Still, it's a victory for the moment.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to lift a lower court injunction that blocked President Donald Trump's decision to terminate the protected legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the U.S., in a win for the administration as it looks to deliver on its hard-line immigration enforcement policies.

The decision clears the way for the Trump administration to move forward with its plans to terminate Biden-era Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for roughly 300,000 Venezuelan migrants living in the U.S. and allows the administration to move forward with plans to immediately remove these migrants, which lawyers for the administration argued they should be able to do.

...

At issue was the TPS program, which allows people from certain countries to live and work in the U.S. legally if they cannot work safely in their home country due to a disaster, armed conflict or other "extraordinary and temporary conditions."

...

In March, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed to keep the protections in place, siding with plaintiffs from the National TPS Alliance in ruling that the termination of the TPS program, which is extended in 18-month increments, is "unprecedented" and suggested that the abrupt termination may have been "predicated on negative stereotypes" about Venezuelan migrants.

Sauer disputed this in the appeal to the Supreme Court. In it, he also accused the lower court judge of improperly intruding on the executive branch's authority over immigration policy.

"Forceful condemnations of gang violence and broad questioning of the integrity of the prior administration's immigration practices, including potential abuses of the TPS program, do not evince discriminatory intent," Sauer said, describing Chen's descriptions as "cherry-picked" and "wrongly portrayed" as "racially tinged."

Essentially the judge ruled that any opposition to open borders is "racist" and therefore any action to end open borders can be overruled by a judge.

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

The Supreme Court delivered a win for the Administration today by lifting the injunction on the move to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for hundreds of thousands of people allowed into the country by Biden from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela...

...A California district judge had blocked the move and the Ninth Circuit refused to lift the injunction. It will now go back to the Ninth Circuit for the resolution of the merits. Only Justice Jackson dissented in the order today... https://documentcloud.org/documents/25948079-24a1059-order/

...Notably, while the statute states that this special status could be assigned on a "case-by-case" basis, the Biden Administration unlawfully adopted a wholesale policy granting temporary parole to hundreds of thousands of individuals from four countries -- Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela ("CHNV") ...

...Yet, the district court would have required case-by-case determinations to end the status. The law however barred review of these determinations:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory)... no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this title to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 208(a). [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).]"

...The administration was open about its desire to remove these individuals before they accrued over two years of continuous presence, as that would trigger a longer removal process.

...The language underlying this special status is highly deferential to the government. The status as parolees is temporary and can be terminated, in the view of the Administration...

...These paroles brought this challenge in one of the most liberal circuits in the country and could still prevail before the Ninth Circuit. It would then be back to the Supreme Court for a review of the merits if the writ is granted.

In related news:

posted by Ace at 03:24 PM

| Access Comments