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.
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: