Supreme Court Grants Stay, Allows Trump to End Biden’s Parole Program for Illegal Aliens
The parole program applied to those from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, totaling over 500,000 illegal aliens.
The Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump’s administration a stay on an order forcing it not to revoke protections given to illegal aliens through former President Joe Biden’s parole program.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The majority did not elaborate on its decision, but once again, Jackson wrote a long dissent.
In April, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court – District of Massachusetts blocked Trump from ending the parole program, giving over 500,000 illegal aliens parole and the right to work.
The program applied to those from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld Talwani’s ruling, denying Trump a stay while it considered the case:
For present purposes it suffices to say that the Secretary [Kristi Noem] has not at this point made a “strong showing” that her categorical termination of plaintiffs’ parole is likely to be sustained on appeal. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (citation omitted). Nor has she shown that the balance of harms and the public interest weigh so heavily in her favor as to warrant a stay of the district court order pending the outcome of this appeal in the absence of a strong showing that the Secretary will prevail.
The administration immediately applied for a stay from SCOTUS, arguing that Noem has “broad discretion over categories of immigration determinations.”
The stay is in place “pending the disposition of the appeal” in the district court.
SCOTUS’s stay does not apply to Talwani’s ruling that protected Afghans and Ukrainians who enrolled in the parole program.
The stay order is different from the case SCOTUS attended to on May 19, where they voted 8-1 to lift an injunction that blocked President Donald Trump from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for some illegal aliens who arrived here through parole processes.
I wonder why Sotomayor voted yes in the first case and no in this one.
The parole program gave illegal aliens a two-year work program if they could find a “U.S.-based financial sponsor.”
Biden’s administration began the program for Venezuelans in 2022. It added Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans in 2023.
Texas and other states sued the administration, but the courts ruled the program was legal.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Apparently the liberal Justices do not recognize that Trump is now President.
they do, that’s why they rule the way they do
katanji is going to be the brick that breaks americas spine
The Left wanted another Ginsburg — they got one.
I have much more respect for Ginsberg than for her.
Ketanji Jackson represents a true low point in American jurisprudence. The saddest thing is not that Ketanji Jackson is an incredibly stupid and unqualified person, but that our system could elevate such a person to the Supreme Court.
“The protections given to illegal aliens through former President Joe Biden’s parole program.”
Oh, you mean the autopen approved program by “brain dead Biden” who was so far gone that he didn’t know his right hand from his left.
I don’t call it “cognitive decline” because Joe had already declined as low as he could possibly go and still be alive.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
It’s like a broken record. Every judge has partisan opinions to a degree but these harpies are lockstep
The non-biologist and the dim-witted Latina — two vile Dhimmi-crat activist-legislators in a pod.
at least soto was honest enough to call herself an affirmative action baby
kentaji still thinks she earned her position on merit
Sotomayor was honest in describing herself as a “Latina,” but, manifestly dishonest and narcissistic when she added the self-congratulatory adjective, “wise.”
Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor years ago said she was a “product of affirmative action” when she was admitted to prestigious universities, but defended the contributions she offered as a Hispanic woman to classroom and workplace diversity.
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/11/sotomayor.affirmative.action/index.html
yeah her self description is not shared by all
Okay. I thought you were referencing the infamous “Wise Latina” remark.
More like Wide Latina.
Ketanji reminds me of Flavor Flav, the guy who wears a big clock around his neck, who’s so stupid he thinks he’s smart.
“ The majority did not elaborate on its decision, but once again, Jackson wrote a long dissent.”
That would indicate to me that Thomas wrote the decision that Jackson babbled about. Complete polar opposites as it relates to aptitude in the law.
She missed her chance at a satisfying career as a View cohost..
More lucrative too but who wants to spend time with those harpies everyday?
It seems she has no governor for either her pen or her mouth. She runs both of them.
Nor has [Secretary Noem] shown that the balance of harms and the public interest weigh so heavily in her favor as to warrant a stay of the district court order[…]
First of all, the parole program must show a significant public benefit — after all, federal laws and rules pertaining to immigration policies is done for the benefit of the US Citizen or for dire humanitarian reasons.
Therefor is is up to plaintiffs — and the judge — to show how terminating the parole program is inhumane or how the US Citizen loses a benefit. A “strong showing” that the Secretary will prevail upon appeal is just an excuse for the judge to exercise policy instead of ruling on matters of fact and law.
It’s a narrower standard for a stay. Like Hur essentially saying, “Biden surely did it, but would never be convicted by a jury.” The judge isn’t saying who is right, he’s estimating how the case is likely to go.
Isn’t a POTUS elected to use his judgment as to what is in the interests of the public and to the public’s benefit? Isn’t this what justifies, for example, all the “green energy” decisions made the Biden administration? Aren’t policy decisions strictly within the authority of the executive?
IMO on some of the more clear cut cases of the Admin wielding apex Executive Powers SCOTUS or at least the majority seems intent on not providing the Trump WH the opportunity to tell them to pound sand on a separation of powers basis. Where the question is closer SCOTUS usually seems willing to defer just enough not to provide firm justification for Trump to ignore them. Sooner or later the CT must address the overreach by inferior courts including injuctions. If SCOTUS refuses to act to rein in inferior courts then no whining if a bare majority in Congress chooses to do so once the budget(s) are dealt with.
There seems to be a growing amount of glee everytime SCOTUS “allows” Trump to be president, however, IMO, this is establishing the precept that the judiciary has given itself the authority to manage, if not become the executive
Absolutely, many on bench are whole hearted believers that Art III judicial power somehow overrides the co equal branches. Judicial rulings are at root no more than opinions which require the basic willingness of all parties including the public at large to accept and adhere to out of respect for the Courts. When the Judiciary undermines that respect they also undermine the willingness to accept their opinions. SCOTUS should IMO be far more proactive in setting and enforcement of clear limits for inferior courts. The longer they refuse them greater the grievances and the greater the eventual backlash from Congress or far worse, when others act b/c Congress fails to act. One way or another the past pendulum will get moved in the opposite direction.
I think this is why Trump pardoned that Chrisley
So that if the Courts rule against him on that
he could easily say wellll welllll wellllllll
now its time to go after allll those fjb pardons
It’s my understanding that the paroles granted under this program were temporary, and issued based upon an understanding that circumstance (in the opinion of the POTUS) in the immigrants’ countries of origin were dangerous at the time of their entry into this country.
If this is so, then obviously at some point a future POTUS would have the authority to declare that the situations in their home countries had changed sufficiently such that the parolees are no longer qualified for their paroles and can be deported. This decision would be every much within the authority of the executive as was the earlier decision by the executive to allow these persons their paroles.
It should be a maxim of law that what the executive can authorize or decide, it can likewise withdraw the authorization or alter its decision. This should be a no-brainer. (Exceptions to such a maxim would only prove the rule.)
Leave a Comment