Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Ending Protections for Venezuelans, Haitians
The judge acknowledged that Trump’s administration will likely appeal the decision, bringing the case back to the Ninth Circuit and potentially to the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians.
“This case arose from action taken post haste by the current DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, to revoke the legal status of Venezuelan and Haitian TPS holders, sending them back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries,” wrote Chen. “The Secretary’s action in revoking TPS was not only unprecedented in the manner and speed in which it was taken but also violatates [sic] the law.”
TPS provides temporary relief for nationals from a designated country “due to extraordinary and temporary conditions.” Those can be natural disasters or armed conflicts.
Those covered by the lawsuit would have lost their protection status on September 10.
Chen found that Noem’s “actions in vacating the orders of the prior administration and terminating TPS exceeded the Secretary’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious, and thus must be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).”
Chen also accused the administration of terminating TPS “on an unprecedentedly rapid timeline,” describing it as “highly truncated and condensed,” which occurred in a short amount of time.
These designations can last for six, 12, or 18 months. Administrations can extend the protections “so long as conditions remain dire.”
It’s ridiculous in my opinion.
The government designated Haiti in 2010 after the devastating earthquake.
“The government has not submitted any evidence substantiating ‘there are notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime that allow for these nationals to be safely returned to their home country,’” added Chen. “And, as this Court found in its postponement order, the government failed to provide any evidence that Venezuelan TPS holders constitute a threat to national security.”
This lawsuit began in February. It’s already been to the Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction preventing the administration from terminating TPS designations.
Chen said SCOTUS’s decision prevented him from making a permanent ruling.
The judge acknowledged that Trump’s administration will likely appeal the decision, bringing the case back to the Ninth Circuit and potentially to the Supreme Court.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Any decisions made based in empathy are permanent. It’s in the Constitution.
Under my proposed Judicial Accountability Act, if this ruling gets overturned, the judge’s citizenship would be revoked immediately.
File grievances against this judge. Go after his license. Lawfare is the only way to teach these miscreants a lesson.
“District judge declares Constitution and SCOTUS unconstitutional.”
This sort of naked Judicial activism has gotta be brought to an end. If these inferior Federal Court Judges won’t restrain themselves and continue to insist on essentially ruling based on their ‘feels’ about a particular policy then either SCOTUS reins them in, Congress reins them in or We the People will be left with little alternative but to do so. When these Judges finally lose the respect of the public through these sorts of decisions they shouldn’t be surprised that the public refuses to grant any deference to their position, their rulings or perhaps to their person. See the blowback visited upon Crown Officials. Tar and feathers are bit much IMO but it certainly would not be unprecedented.
I’d be all for tar and feathers at this point. This crap has gone way too far.
If the binary choice is civil war and civil war adjacent actions OR a negotiated ‘divorce’ of Red/Blue then I’d much prefer the negotiated divorce. Once the rhetoric turns to actual violence things spin out of control as society collapses and lines are drawn. An example of bad outcomes; some young LEO is tasked to protect a person or a building and this poor SoB is in the way so he is targeted as precondition to achieve the tar and feathering. Worse will be directly targeting random LEO, Fire Dept, EMS, Sanitation workers, utility workers to bring down the opposition by undermining their ability to deliver basic services and basic safety. Then the wheels of civilization come off and anarchy is intermingled with whatever ‘noble’ goals the revolutionaries may hold. We do not want this in the USA if there’s a way to avoid it.
Unfortunately, the traitors on the left don’t share your sentiment. It’s time to treat enemies like enemies.
Maybe Milhouse house will drop some of that pretend lawyer knowledge in this thread!
“Did you know judicial immunity makes tar fall right off judges?”
He will be along shortly to inform everyone why TPS once granted can never be ended much like a naturalized citizen can never have their citizenship revoked and deported no matter what the actual law says.
So long as you deny what is firmly established and undisputed law, that naturalization, once validly obtained, cannot ever be revoked, nothing you say on the subject is worth anything.
As it happens, if you read this decision you will see that TPS is a temporary designation for a fixed period, and can then be extended for fixed periods of either 6, 12, or 18 months at a time. And yes, there is nothing in the statute that allows a TPS designation or extension, once made, to be revoked. From the text of the statute it appears that it has to be allowed to run its course, until it expires, as it will do in a maximum of 18 months.
To be fair, I can see the problem here and understand the rationale of the district court. The statute only provides: “There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). Congress forgot to add: “Yeah, we really mean it. Seriously, no judicial review. Thanks for asking”
The decision directly addresses this. 9th circuit precedent says clearly that this only applies to individual designations, not to the process by which decisions are made.
So I guess Congress needed some additionally clarification? How about: “Honestly, we’re not kidding, no judicial review, so don’t even think about some half-___ed interpretation that would essentially render the whole provision pointless”
Yes, exactly — if that’s what Congress intended. But the evidence tends to show that they didn’t intend that. The appeals courts will have to decide that.
No Milhouse. I was, of course, being sarcastic. They didn’t need to add anything. The judiciary is the branch that is acting irresponsibly and the now the S.Ct will need to address another judicially created mess. Yeah theoretically a future Congress could rewrite any statute but that is a grossly unrealistic and impractical solution that certainly not stop an irresponsible judiciary from issuing more warped interpretations.
What makes you think the courts are not reading the statute correctly? Especially since this is the established precedent?
Your claim that it would “essentially render the whole provision pointless” is just not true. And while the appeals courts will eventually figure out what the text does mean, it seems more likely that Congress meant it the way the courts have said it did.
The same judges that are whining to the press about the Supreme Court not having their backs. Maybe if they actually followed the law and the constitution the SC would support their decisions.
Obama judge.
Probably not a natural citizen
Born in Oakland and alumni of Berkeley Law School. Formerly worked for the ACLU.
It’s trivial these days to look this stuff up.
Perhaps a second Boston Tea party is required. However, instead of throwing tea into the harbor we could throw district court judges.
Excellent idea.
Frack this activist judge, ignore it.
Appointed by the communist Kenyan with the fake birth certificate who planned a coupe against our President.
It’s a political ruling from the Commissar Judge, nothing else.
Didn’t SCOTUS just rule that a district judge cannot make a ruling that is beyond his district. In other words, no universal restraints.
No, it didn’t.
The detention provisions of section 236, distinguish between two groups of aliens. The first group consists of aliens arrested on a warrant issued by DHS, who, subject to certain restrictions, may be detained or released on bond or conditional parole. INA § 236(a), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(a). The regulatory provision at 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d) (2025) authorizes Immigration Judges to “exercise the authority in section 236 of the [INA] . . . to detain the alien in custody, release the alien, and determine the amount of bond, if any, under which the respondent may be released, as provided in § 1003.19 of this chapter.” The second group of aliens identified in section 236 are certain defined categories of “criminal aliens” subject to mandatory detention under section 236(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(c). An Immigration Judge is without authority to consider a bond request filed by an alien falling into this category.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1413311/dl?inline
How is this relevant? None of the plaintiffs are criminals, and indeed criminals are automatically ineligible for TPS and can have it revoked immediately. As the court pointed out.
This reminds me of the old joke about the fellow going in for hand surgery.
“Doctor, after this surgery will I be able to play the piano?”
“Certainly”.
“Cool. I never could before.”
Haiti before the earthquake had terrible economy, public health, and crime. And yet it didn’t get TPS until the earthquake. So it seems to me that if the earthquake damage has been repaired or papered over, and things are now no worse than they were before the earthquake, then the emergency that justified the TPS is indeed over. I don’t see why it needs to achieve a level of safety it never had before.
And it is proof that the judge is trying to SET POLICY, not adjudicate PROCESS set in law.
The judge does not get to determine if the country is safe again, nor what those standards are.
It was the state department that determined Haiti is not safe. The judge quoted the state department finding. And the statute requires a finding that the emergency is over and it’s now safe to go back.
My point is that this can’t mean absolutely safe, because Haiti has never been that and is unlikely ever to be that. It must mean as safe as it was before the earthquake. And the state department didn’t make a finding about that.
Let’s play Conclusory Bingo:
…post haste…
…legal status…
…so dangerous…
…unprecedented in the manner and speed …
…arbitrary and capricious…
…notable improvements…
…a threat to national security
A fun game for the entire (federal judiciary) family who are bored that meddling in public policy requires being elected and therefore not judicable by law school grads who hit the lottery.
This has already been shot down by the higher courts. How are we doing this again. The courts have no review power here. The Executive brand sets and is able to unset protective status.
I don’t think it has been shot down yet. The ninth circuit will probably uphold it, and then we’ll see what SCOTUS finally has to say.
The arguments here are not all trivial. Nothing in the statute’s language authorizes the secretary to alter or cancel a TPS determination that has already been made.
Well, except for that whole “TEMPORARY” bit.
Otherwise we’re doing that whole “And what the king has written can never be revoked” malarkey, again. Which is NOT a feature of our Constitution.
Huh? Now you’re not making sense. No one disputes that the designation is temporary, and will run out in a maximum of 18 months. But Noem purported to alter it and then to cancel it altogether, and there is nothing in the statute that authorizes her to do that. The plain text implies that once Majorkas extended TPS for 18 months, there is nothing that Noem can do until the 18 months have passed.
Says who? There are many statutes that authorize someone to do something but not to undo it. For instance the president can declare National Monuments, but not undeclare them. Once a NM is declared it would take an act of Congress to abolish it.
I see the pretend lawyer is deferring to the left again just like I thought he would.
Shut up. Have you read the decision? At least scanned it? Do you have any idea what it says, or what its arguments are? If not then you have no idea whether it’s right or wrong, and can’t even form an opinion on it.
sending them back to conditions that are so dangerous that even the State Department advises against travel to their home countries
IOW, “I am going to write policy, despite the Constitution and the law.”
No, that is not what the judge is doing. He may be right or wrong, but he is not writing policy, he is interpreting the language of the statute. Unless you have read the decision you can’t really comment on it.
So the judge admits the the Clinton Global Fund did nothing to improve Haiti since 2010?