A three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it could not anticipate the Trump administration’s efforts to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for about 300,000 migrants from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan. Two Republican-appointed judges on the panel ruled that decisions by the US Department of Homeland Security to discontinue TPS programs were not reviewed, setting aside a lower court order that prevented officials from terminating these protections.
Through a 2–1 ruling, the court also rejected the argument that President Trump’s decision to terminate TPS programs led to inconsistent comments about immigrants from non-European, primarily non-white countries. Violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The judges acknowledged Mr Trump’s “derogatory” comments but could not find a direct link between him and the move to eliminate TPS security.
“While we do not condemn the objectionable and derogatory nature of the President’s remarks, we direct that these statements have occurred primarily in removed and unrelated references to TPS policy or decisions,” US Circuit Judge Concept Kailashan, One George W. Bush said Bush. , Written in majority opinion.
In his dissent, US Circuit Judge Morgan Kristen, who was appointed by President Obama, said the termination of TPS was reviewable and violated federal administrative law. Kristen also highlighted the “monumental” consequences of majority rule, which she called “deeply flawed”.
Kristen wrote, “The importance of interests at stake makes the argument in favor of reviewability even more compelling, as the lives of 300,000 non-citizens and 200,000 American citizens will be changed forever.”
Given an agreement between Justice Department lawyers and groups challenging the end of humanitarian immigration programs, Monday’s decision effectively allowed the administration to finalize its decision to end TPS designations for Nepal and Honduras. gives.
Established by Congress in the early 1990s, TPS programs are designed to avoid migrants in armed conflict-stricken home countries, recovering from natural disasters, battling an epidemic or otherwise protecting their citizens. Cannot guarantee a refund.
Those receiving the current TPS of their position would be vulnerable to deportation, but their fate would likely hinge on the November presidential election result, as the program enrolled 120 years after the Trump administration ended a favorable court order Promised to give to migrants. Their protection.
Under an agreement by the Trump administration with the central-south government of El Salvador, the US agreed to give an additional year to more than 250,000 Salvadoran immigrants with the TPS to live and work in the country after the conclusion of the lawsuit Expressed. The agreement came weeks after the Salvadoran government signed the agreement, in which the US allowed non-Salvadoran asylum seekers from the southern border to El Salvador.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has vowed to shield TPS holders from deportation to “unsafe” countries and extend the patronage of Venezuelans who survived the country’s economic collapse.
He said leading lawyer Ahilan Arulantham, challenging the termination of humanitarian programs, said Monday’s decision meant that non-Salvadoran TPS recipients could lose their positions on March 5, 2021. TPS protection of Salvadoran immigrants may expire in November 2021.
Arulantham, who is also a senior attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union for Southern California, said that at the center of the case would be presenting thousands of US citizen children with “terrible options” at the end of TPS programs.
“This means that those families with American teenagers and children in grade school and high school and middle school – such as Christa Ramos, our principal plaintiff in the case – have to face either parting from their parents and moving in with one The choice would be. Uncle or Aunt, or El Salvador, except for countries like Haiti or Sudan, which they never knew, “Arulantham said.
Arulantham said his group hopes to file a request to the 9th Circuit to reconsider Monday’s order through an “en banc” vote by 11 judges. If that request is denied, the final recourse for TPS recipients will be an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
A Justice Department spokesman praised Monday’s decision, saying that racial animosity played a “baseless charge” in ending TPS.
The spokesman said, “For nearly two years, the district court’s injunction prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from taking action that Congress has fully vested within the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security – action that constitutionally constituted by judicial review Is out of.”
Claire Hyams contributed to this report.