Supreme Court rules on legal protections for over 500,000 immigrants

 

The Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration’s bid for permission to revoke temporary legal protections for more than 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela pending further litigation. The administration had asked the high court to halt a Massachusetts judge’s order that stopped the Department of Homeland Security from revoking a Biden-era grant of temporary relief (called “parole”) to noncitizens from those countries.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“This application seeks to correct a recent, destabilizing trend in immigration cases,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote to the high court May 8, in one of many emergency applications to the justices in Donald Trump’s second term, as many judges find legal issues with the administration’s actions. This case is one of several urgent government appeals involving immigration specifically.

“The previous Administration granted parole categorically to aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, resulting in the parole of 532,000 aliens into the United States,” Sauer wrote. He argued that the Massachusetts judge, Obama appointee Indira Talwani, failed to properly defer to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s discretion to revoke parole. The judge said case-by-case review was required.

Opposing emergency relief, lawyers for the immigrants wrote that the government was seeking the high court’s permission “to execute the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”

They wrote that if the district judge hadn’t blocked the administration, then “approximately half a million Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans lawfully in this country would have become undocumented, legally unemployable, and subject to mass expulsion on an expedited basis.” They said the judge “properly held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that Secretary Noem’s decision to trigger the first ever mass revocation of parole contravened express limits on her authority and was predicated on an erroneous legal conclusion.”

NEWS ALERT! President Trump's illegal and unconstitutional tariffs has been blocked by the federal courts.

 

A federal court on Wednesday froze most of the sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump on virtually every foreign nation, ruling the levies exceed the president's legal authority.

The ruling — issued by a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade — halted the sweeping 10% tariffs Mr. Trump assessed on virtually every U.S. trading partner on "Liberation Day" last month, with higher tariffs threatened for dozens of countries. The court also blocked a separate set of tariffs imposed on China, Mexico and Canada by the Trump administration, which has cited drug trafficking and illegal immigration as its reasoning for the hikes.

Global markets rallied on the news.

The Trump administration has justified the tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, which gives the president the power to regulate imports during certain emergency situations. But the court on Wednesday rejected the government's interpretation of the law, and said it would be unconstitutional for any law passed by Congress to give the president blanket authority to set tariffs.

"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the judges wrote Wednesday.

The court said Mr. Trump's global 10% tariffs aren't authorized by IEEPA because they're designed to deal with trade imbalances between the U.S. and the rest of the world, which the judges said should fall under non-emergency legislation. 

And the China, Canada and Mexico tariffs aren't legal because they "do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders," the court also found. 

The three judges who wrote Wednesday's ruling were nominated to the bench by former President Ronald Reagan, former President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in his first term.

"It's great to see that the court unanimously ruled against this massive power grab by the President. The ruling emphasizes that he was wrong to claim a virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs, that IEEPA law doesn't grant any such boundless authority, and that it would be unconstitutional if it did." Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University involved in one of the lawsuits before the U.S. Court of International Trade, said in a statement.

Following the decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that Mr. Trump's tariffs deriving from a series of executive orders invoking IEEPA are unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras found that the law "does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs set forth" in five of his orders and barred the Trump administration from collecting any tariff deriving from them from the plaintiffs in the case, two family-owned businesses based in Illinois. The judge paused his order for 14 days to give the Justice Department time to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The case, Contreras wrote in a 33-page decision, "is about whether IEEPA enables the president to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy. The court agrees with plaintiffs that it does not."

The Trump administration said in court papers with the trade court that it will appeal the ruling to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department has said that if the appeals court declines to provide interim relief in the coming hours, the U.S. will ask the Supreme Court to intervene Friday.

"Absent at least interim relief from this Court, the United States plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court tomorrow to avoid the irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake," the Justice Department filing said.

The department has also asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to pause enforcement of its ruling pending appeal. That court has given the states and small businesses until Friday at 12 p.m. to respond to the government's stay request.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai responded to the ruling by defending the reasoning for the tariffs, saying the U.S.'s trade deficits with other countries have "created a national emergency that has decimated American communities."

"It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness," Desai said in a statement.

Tariffs are a signature part of Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. He argues the levies are necessary to boost U.S. manufacturing and end what he views as unfair trade practices. But the moves have rattled financial markets and drawn rebuke from Democrats, as well as some Republicans.

Mr. Trump has stood by his tariff strategy but halted many of the levies while vowing to negotiate with U.S. trading partners. A set of so-called "reciprocal" tariffs on dozens of countries were paused in April for a period of at least three months. Goods that fall under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement were exempted from 25% tariffs. Massive tariffs on Chinese goods have also been cut back amid negotiations.

Meanwhile, the tariffs have drawn lawsuits from businesses, Democratic states and other parties. Wednesday's ruling was linked to two lawsuits: One from a group of businesses that say they have been harmed by the tariffs, and one from several states.

Some of the lawsuits against the tariffs have raised legal doctrines long championed by conservative lawyers and judges to restrict the authority of executive branch agencies. Those include the major questions doctrine, which says Congress needs to give clear authorization for federal agencies to decide issues of major economic significance, and the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that Congress can't delegate its legislative power to the executive branch.

"If this issue gets to the Supreme Court, which is a big if, and if it comes down to the major questions doctrine or the nondelegation doctrine, and those are big ifs as well, we believe the court's precedent requires them to rule in our favor," Somin told CBS News earlier this month.

BREAKING: Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger incinerates Donald Trump for his mass pardon of the violent January 6th insurrectionists — calls it a "slap in the face" to the cops who served that day.

BREAKING: Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger incinerates Donald Trump for his mass pardon of the violent January 6th insurrectionists — calls it a "slap in the face" to the cops who served that day.

MAGA truly is a historic disgrace...

"That was probably one of my worst days in this job," Manger said of Trump's lawless pardons. "I think it sent a chilling message to every police officer in this country that, you know, you can be involved in some massive public disorder event and that you could have a politician later on decide that, well, I liked what this other, this side was doing, so we're gonna pardon all these people."

Scott MacFarlane CBS News explained that Manger came out of retirement after the Capitol siege to assist in "rebuilding an already understaffed force and beefing up the intelligence unit, which failed so mightily ahead of the siege."

Now, Manger is moving ahead with his planned retirement.

"It was, I think, a slap in the face to every police officer that was here," Manger said of the pardons.

"This is a big job for the person who succeeds Manger. The number of threats against members of Congress is nearing 10,000 a year," explained MacFarlane.

"And members of Congress must be protected in every corner of the country when they return home, not just inside the Capitol Dome," he added.

As if the January 6th pardons weren't bad enough, Trump is now floating the idea of pardoning the criminals who were convicted of plotting to kidnap Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. 

The signal from this White House is clear: violent crime is acceptable so long as it's pro-MAGA.

Virgo's Friendship Style!

 Don't be offended if Virgo turns down the first invite you extend although Virgos are kind and friendly to everyone, they may have some walls around them, built to protect themselves and the circle of friends they already have. This sign takes friendship very seriously, and is also very good at putting themselves (and their energy reserves) first. That's why Virgos won't take on a friend that they don't think they'd be able to sustain. So while Virgo is happy to confab in the locker room before a gym class, it may be years before he or she finally says yes to that coffee after class invite.

Virgo's Love Style!

 Virgo loves hard, and is always in pursuit of star love the kind where souls, minds, and bodies seamlessly merge. That's why this sign sometimes gets the (unfair) reputation of being too picky. They're not they just know exactly what they're looking for, and know that settling for someone good enough will mean that they'll never find the love that their body and soul crave.

Even when they find someone who might fulfill that role in their lives, Virgos may still be cagey. That's because this sign is innately wired to protect their hearts. During the initial courtship, which may feel like it's taking forever, Virgo is watching his or her potential partner's every move. They want to make sure that this person will live up to the ideal image that they're crafting in their mind, and a wrong move (like being rude to a waiter) will cause Virgo to cross this candidate off the list.

However, once Virgos give their heart, they give everything. They expect absolute honesty and give the same in return. A Virgo truly believes that partnership means "what's mine is yours," and this sign elevates a partnership above all else. Because Virgos believe in lifelong love, a breakup or betrayal can be particularly devastating.

Virgo may seem a bit buttoned-up in public, but they love sex they see it as a celebration of their partnership and a commitment to their partner. They cherish the physical aspects of their relationship and are not happy if they don't have that, even for a few days. Making plenty of physical contact, including morning kisses and long evening embraces, massages, and time in the sheets, is key to keeping your Virgo happy.

Get Love Insights for FREE - celebrate the month of love and connect with a Keen Advisor now!

Best Zodiac Love Matches for Virgo

Taurus: Two earth signs, Taurus and Virgo innately get each other, and they believe that drama takes away from partnership. These two signs are happy to swap social media passwords; each knows that the other has nothing to hide.

Cancer: Think of the line where the beach and the sea converge that watery space where sand and ocean are impossible to separate is emblematic of the Cancer/Virgo bond. These signs are nearly psychically intertwined, and their physical connection is pretty out of this world.

Capricorn: Practical Caps and grounded Virgos agree on so much in life they have a plan, they pursue excellence, and they're happy to avoid drama however possible. But they're anything but boring. Because these two signs understand each other, they can help each other be their best and they're unstoppable in the bedroom