The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump possesses the authority to revoke the protected status of approximately 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, even while an appeal against this presidential order is still ongoing.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, issued a sharp dissent, arguing that the majority of the Court “has plainly botched” its judgment by granting a stay to a previous ruling that had blocked the terminations initiated by Trump on his first day back in office.
Prior to this ruling, these immigrants, who had fled their countries due to conflict or unsafe living conditions, were permitted to remain in the United States for up to two years.
Jackson’s dissent contained a notably sarcastic remark: “I suppose that it is in the public’s interest to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.”
The Justice criticized the Supreme Court’s decision for failing to adequately consider the “devastating consequences” that would ensue from allowing the government to abruptly disrupt the lives of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal challenges are pending.
“While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum pre-decision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize — not maximize — harm to litigating parties,” Jackson stated.
This ruling follows a recent decision wherein the Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration to rescind the protective status of nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants residing in the U.S. under the Temporary Protected Status Program.
Friday’s decision arose from an executive order by Trump issued on January 20, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to terminate all “categorical parole programs,” or CHNV parole, allowing certain immigrants to reside in the U.S. for up to two years and, in some cases, to work legally.
A group of plaintiffs contested the DHS’s termination of these programs in federal court in Massachusetts. A judge stayed the department’s action, determining that federal law mandates parole terminations to be executed on a case-by-case basis, rather than in bulk, Jackson noted in her dissent.
The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision. Subsequently, the Trump administration sought intervention from the Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court’s ruling.
The latest ruling allows the DHS to rescind the protected status temporarily while the 1st Circuit deliberates on the appeal of the executive order.
In her dissent, Jackson articulated that the immigrants impacted by this decision are now faced with two untenable options.
“On one hand, they could choose to leave the United States and encounter ‘dangers in their native countries,’ face destructive ‘family separation,’ and possibly ‘forfeit any opportunity to obtain a remedy based on their … claims,’ as noted by the District Court,” Jackson explained.
“Conversely, they could remain in the United States post-parole termination and endure the threat of immediate removal by government agents, along with the serious consequences that entails.”
“Either option presents significant challenges for the respondents that far outweigh any potential harm to the Government, should this Court decline the stay request,” she concluded.
