WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to lift protections for more than 300,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been living in the United States without risk of deportation.
It was the second time in four months that the justices had agreed to allow the migrants to be deported.
In an earlier iteration of the case, the justices in May agreed to temporarily block a judge鈥檚 order to retain the protections. That order was unsigned and gave no reasons. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The case then returned to Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, who ruled for a second time last month in favor of the immigrants after reviewing a new claim and receiving additional evidence. Chen said he was not bound by the Supreme Court鈥檚 order from May, noting it 鈥渄id not provide any specific analysis.鈥�
In its brief, unsigned order, the court鈥檚 conservative majority said that 鈥渁lthough the posture of the case has changed, the legal arguments and relative harms generally have not.鈥� For that reason, the court said, 鈥渢he same result that we reached in May is appropriate here.鈥�
The three liberal justices noted their dissent, with Jackson sharply criticizing her colleagues for a 鈥済rave misuse鈥� of the emergency docket.
The majority, she wrote, has used its power 鈥渢o allow this administration to disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible.鈥�
Jackson accused the majority of wrongly 鈥減rivileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families鈥� pleas for the stability our government has promised them.鈥�
While the court鈥檚 ruling on Friday is again temporary, it means hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrations are at risk of immediate deportation as litigation continues. After the Supreme Court鈥檚 initial order, lawyers for the immigrants said 鈥渕any thousands of families were torn apart,鈥� Venezuelans who had been protected lost jobs, were jailed and 鈥渄eported to a country that remains extremely unsafe.鈥�
President Donald Trump has tried to end the protections under the Temporary Protected Status program as part of his aggressive mass deportation efforts.
In asking the Supreme Court to halt Chen鈥檚 latest order, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that the judge鈥檚 actions were another example of 鈥渢he increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this court鈥檚 orders on the emergency docket.鈥�
As long as Chen鈥檚 order is in effect, Justice Department lawyers told the court, the Trump administration 鈥渕ust permit over 300,000 Venezuelan nationals to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so even temporarily is 鈥榗ontrary to the national interest.鈥欌��
The Temporary Protected Status program, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, allows migrants from nations that have experienced national disasters, armed conflicts or other extraordinary instabilities to live and work legally in the United States.
The case began in February, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tried to end an 18-month extension of protections for certain Venezuelan migrants that had been granted by the Biden administration.
Immigrants affected by the change challenged the move, saying Noem had exceeded her authority and violated administrative procedures for terminating the program. The Department of Homeland Security failed, for instance, to review the conditions in Venezuela before deciding to end the program, according to lawyers for the immigrants led by Ahilan T. Arulanantham of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.
They characterized the administration鈥檚 claim against the lower court judge as a 鈥渂aseless and dangerous accusation鈥� that did not disregard the earlier Supreme Court order. More broadly, they said, the justices had repeatedly directed lower court judges in other recent cases to ensure government agencies were complying with the relevant statutes.
Trump administration lawyers defended Noem鈥檚 actions and said the statute at issue did not allow such legal challenges. They urged the justices to reject what they characterized as a do-over, saying the immigrant advocates 鈥渓argely recycle legal arguments that previously failed to persuade the court.鈥�
In response to the Supreme Court鈥檚 latest order, Arulanantham derided the majority for departing from past practice, including when it allowed lower court judges to block pro-immigrant policies during the Biden administration.
鈥淭his is perhaps the most extreme sign that the Supreme Court has abandoned law for politics,鈥� he said in a statement. 鈥淭here is no way under law to make sense of the vast new power the court has taken for itself.鈥�
This article originally appeared in .
