Supreme Court Allows Trump to Revoke Humanitarian Legal Status for Over a Half-Million Migrants

What Happened?

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to temporarily strip the legal protections for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries.

In Friday's ruling, the Justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani had ruled that over 530,000 nationals could remain in the U.S. under a Biden-era program.

They were also able to obtain authorization to legally work or apply for status adjustments.

It halted previously issued termination notices from the Department of Homeland Security.

Although the higher court did not give a reason in its brief order, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented.

'The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm,' Jackson wrote.

She added that the decision undervalued the consequences of allowing the government to disrupt the lives of over half a million people while their legal claims are pending.

Why it Matters

The DOJ reportedly looked to do away with the immigrant statuses by late April as part of efforts to shut down the controversial CHNV program.

The controversial program and BP One app aimed to bring order amid the chaotic influx surrounding the Southwestern U.S. border.

But the recently granted DOJ request for emergency relief could potentially open the door for mass deportations while the case plays out.

The Supreme Court also recently allowed the Trump administration to strip the temporary protected status of 350,000 Venezuelans.

In its decision on May 19, the higher court granted the Justice Department's request to lift a San Francisco judge's ruling that blocked the White House in March.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen found the White House's deportation efforts were based on racial discrimination and Venezuelan gang-affiliated generalizations.

White House officials accused Judge Chen of improperly overstepping the executive branch’s authority over immigration policy.

Solicitor General John Sauer also claimed that Chen 'cherry-picked' examples of racial discrimination.

Attorney Ahilan Arulanantham, representing those Venezuelan TPS holders, believed the higher court's decision to be 'the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history.'

Justice Jackson, solely, detailed her dissent as well in this case.

How it Affects You

The Trump administration reportedly believes that there needs to be an end to the 'vicious cycle' of unlawful immigration.

President Donald Trump has previously criticized various judges for blocking his administration's immigration policies.

Federal courts are reportedly hearing more than 100 lawsuits challenging various immigration initiatives by Trump.

Trump has aggressively set in motion demands for federal agents to arrest 3,000 or more people a day as part of his new immigration crackdown agenda.

It's a push by Trump and his attorneys who have stated that these actions fall under the president's powers.

As ICE agents begin to ramp up efforts, the Trump administration also looks to challenge judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

The future outlook in the U.S. surrounding immigration matters that involve presidential action could significantly change as we know it.