The intense struggle between the Trump Administration and federal judges continued this week with another court ordering a halt to a nationwide program. In Massachusetts, District Judge Indira Talwani is preventing President Donald Trump from canceling a Biden program granting parole and the right to work to immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). Judge Talwani’s order would require individual hearings for the half of a million individuals allowed into the country under this program by President Joe Biden.
Under the announcement published in the Federal Register, the Department of Homeland Security officially moved to terminate the CHNV Program.
The announcement followed an Executive Order, signed on Trump’s first day in office, entitled “Securing Our Borders,” directing the DHS to end the CHNV program.
Under the notice, DHS said that the parole status would expire in 30 days “unless the Secretary makes an individual determination to the contrary.” It further mandated that parolees who had not obtained a legal basis to be in the United States, such as a green card or other visa, must depart the United States before their parole expires.
In the prior hearing, Judge Talwani indicated that she would not allow that to happen, stating that the Administration’s interpretation of the law was “incorrect” and that “[t]he nub of the problem here is that [Homeland Security Secretary Krisit Noem], in cutting short the parole period afforded to these individuals, has to have a reasoned decision.”
In her opinion, Judge Talwani wrote:
“If their parole status is allowed to lapse, plaintiffs will be faced with two unfavorable options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings. If plaintiffs leave the country on their own, they will face dangers in their native countries, as set forth in their affidavits.”
The court also noted that leaving would cause family separation and jeopardize their ability to seek a remedy based on the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Administration argued that it did have a “reasoned decision” to end the CHNV program and weighed the cost to the parolees. It noted that the parolees were always going to face family separation and costs since this was just a temporary, two-year program. It asserted that it did weigh alternative periods for winding down the program. While the court may disagree with its conclusions, it asserts that it has the same discretion used by President Biden in creating the program.
There was another pressing reason for the change. If the parolees were allowed to run the course of the full period, those who did not obtain legal status could force formal removal proceedings rather than the expedited removal under the program.
The Justice Department maintained:
“DHS’s decision to terminate the CHNV program and existing grants of parole under that program is within this statutory authority and comports with the notice requirements of the statute and regulations,” they wrote. “Additionally, given the temporary nature of CHNV parole and CHNV parolees’ pre-existing inability to seek re-parole under the program, their harms are outweighed by the harms to the public if the Secretary is not permitted to discontinue a program she has determined does not serve the public interest.”
All of this presents another novel legal question. Parole is not a legal status under immigration laws. It is a status created by executive action and is now being curtailed under that same authority. However, these individuals came to the country under the promise of a two-year period. The question is whether a temporary program created by executive fiat can be treated as creating a type of vested right.
If Judge Talwani prevails, individual determinations of half a million cases would be an overwhelming burden on the Administration and easily run out the time granted under the program for these individuals. Indeed, for many of the individuals, the appellate process could exceed that period.
The court is not weighing the harshness of the decision but the president’s discretion in making such a decision. Judge Talwani suggests that, once created by President Biden, the program cannot be curtailed or shortened by President Trump. That question could very well find itself on the Supreme Court’s ever-lengthening docket.
Stunning the amount of jusicial overeach but like someone said let ’em have their free speech. It just reveals the a-holes.
Just another treasonous judge.
Status of all entries into the USA since January 20, 2021 is denied.
Not a citizen. Not my problem. Take your chances….IDGAF about you.
I speak from a position of absolute authority, like these judges think they do.
As a homeless person since August 2023, that didn’t get a government supplied hotel and right to work, I have no empathy for any that came.
The non-criminals BOUGHT the BIG LIE of the American Dream. There is not freedom or justice (LOL) for all. You will be a slave or serf. 1 in 100 will make it — and the media will amplify that to distort the results.
If CHINA is so wonderful, why don’t they travel there? We also had 12,000,000+ people from 190 countries come to our borders, many the worst people – criminals, rapists, gang bangers, drug mules, and people that may just destroy the infrastructure at the right moment – but China doesn’t have a migration problem. Nor Japan. Korea….
Oh, they have too many….. yeah, ain’t that convenient excuse and not the reason at all. They DONT allow foreigners to take over their lands. I want the most well off to take in the most illegal aliens. If you can’t take 1 or 2, you are a worthless person. Utterly contemptible souls.
We need to pull the VISAs of every last Chinese person too….. watch the courts say you can’t do that. If you pull one – discriminatory. If you pull all – reasons….we’ll make up.
US Judicial system is over. Legislators done.
Time for a DICTATORSHIP and strip those rights. You’ll learn better under the yoke of dictators. Xi is a dictator – Biden said so aloud.
I am down for a repeat of World War…..the Malthusians did this to ALL of US.
@Jason
No, actually, we don’t need to be that extreme. not everything in life is an opportunity to resist nor an invitation to destroy what displeases us. Cooler heads will prevail. I find the reactionary tendencies of modern young people to be very concerning, on either side of the aisle. Generationally, those of us over the age of 40 (anyone younger than that is a kid to me) might be the only sane people remaining on earth, and we won’t capitulate to reactionary nonsense. You do not lead the way, and you will not receive the torch, right, left – doesn’t matter. I hear the frustration, but this is not the way, and the rest of us won’t let it be the way, because we simply know better. Chill.
Sigh. Was me. Wrong AV. Correct opinion.
This was me. AV is wrong. My opinion is still my opinion. If double comments appear, I apologize.
Government argument: “While the court may disagree with its conclusions, it asserts that it has the same discretion used by President Biden in creating the program.”
That seems so painfully obvious that it appears that it is preparstion for the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court.
Roberts has only himself to blame if the Court has a towering stack of appeals that can’t be ignored on his desk. He should have reined in these political judges long ago. He will likely go down as the weakest chief justice ever.
In a fight between crazy district courts that exist only by the pleasure of Congress and an Article II president the courts must inevitably lose.
the three branches exist so two can smack down the overreach of the third, no matter which point of the triangle that is.
Good opinions.
But was the “smack down” power really intended to be invested in one district court judge, hand-selected by the litigant to fit his/her purpose? There has to be a way to allow the judicial branch to exercise its oversight functions without shutting down initiatives of another branch while the case works through its inevitable appeals? It seems to me that litigants who seek a national remedy should have to seek that remedy in a manner that doesn’t make one judge more powerful than the entire Congress or President.
#. Weren’t paroles for humanitarian purposes? Relative dying needs care, attend funeral, etc for brief periods of time?
“Roberts has only himself to blame if the Court has a towering stack of appeals that can’t be ignored on his desk. He should have reined in these political judges long ago.”
I see nothing in the Constitution that provides Roberts, or SCOTUS, with any power to discipline judges, only to review, and remand or overturn, their decisions (and that primarily by implication). Since Congress has the power to create “inferior courts”, presumably the power to discipline the judges for those courts falls to that branch of government as well.
Number 6
Today is the 113th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. 113 years, and what has been learned? From the Democrats, not much. They’d rather fill the rafts with survivables, lock everyone in their staterooms, tell the band to keep playing, rearrange the deck chairs, tell the plebeians below decks that cold water is good for them, then leave on one life raft, cutting the others loose. However, in this analogy, they found, after cutting loose, that the other rafts had all the food and the oars.
Rabble rabble.
Governmentar”While the court may disagree with its conclusions, it asserts that it has the same discretion used by President Biden in creating the program.”
How does the question of standing by plaintiffs in a federal court in Boston, affect the entire country? Are all of the parolees in the Boston circuit? I thought SCOTUS was taking this tack as a limiting factor to judge shopping and judicial activism. Including the notion that the creation of a program by presidential fiat, having come into being, cannot be undo by the same power.
@Anonymous
I’d like to know that, too. Power has gone to some heads. I know that impeaching judges would create a firestorm of cries of ‘totalitarianism’, even though the same modern left very vocally wanted to dismantle SCOTUS in recent years, because they are petulant children; nevertheless, SCOTUS needs to wake up and do their jobs. There is quite literally nothing remaining to respect or honor on the modern left, they are basically very privileged thugs, a mafia of hundreds of thousands. It is no wonder they would like literal, actual, gangsters to have free reign in our country. Elliot Ness seems like a gentle hummingbird at this point.
It all stinks to high heaven, and only on one side.
“impeaching judges would create a firestorm of cries of ‘totalitarianism’,”
There is no requirement or process to impeach judges described anywhere in the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 stipulates only that judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”. So, unless one is prepared to argue (and demonstrate) that the Founders intended that, while members of Congress and officers of the Executive branch may be removed for cause, all judges should be totally immune from removal under all circumstances (a proposition which I find to be patently absurd), one must assume that the process for removing a judge should be relatively trivial, at least for the “inferior courts” that Congress is given leave to create. I think that Congress could, and should, pass legislation that specifies a simple, straightforward process to remove those judges. A simple majority vote should suffice. The Constitution likewise does not stipulate impeachment to remove a SCOTUS justice, but I think that a more deliberate process similar to Presidential impeachment would be appropriate at that level. YMMV.
Number 6
I want to see the judge’s green card! Hey, it’s Massachusetts, what do you expect?
The DOJ should consider filing the half-million individual CHNV removal cases in Judge Talwani’s court, or otherwise in Massachusetts.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fox-news-jonathan-turley-calls-out-trump-administration-s-troubling-case-against-detained-columbia-student/ar-AA1CKl0N
Wonder what line was crossed to get Turley to finally admit there’s no case against Mahmoud Khalil. Still he left out the part about Trump’s people lying about the whole thing from the get go.
And still no mention of Abrego Garcia. If I recall correctly Turley said Mr. Garcia should be returned to get his due process and nobody would seriously believe Trump’s administration couldn’t accomplish this. Well crickets!
Then there are the hundreds of others ferreted out to spend the remainder of their lives in a prison straight out of a conservative wet dream without even the pretense of due process.
Garcia isn’t a free speech issue. Turley is a 1st lawyer.
Garcia is an illegal, per Biden’s DOJ, and evidence was found by a Biden-era immigration judge that he is MS-13. He can rot wherever he is, as can those wanting his worthless ass brought back to the US (although MD does kinda deserve him).
Of course there is a case – the case is that he lied on his Visa application – the Immigration courts have alreayd found him deportable, and but for the left lawfare he would be gone.
The left is insistant on taking every individual case to the supreme court – no matter how absurd the claims.
There remeain a number of things that are not clear about this case.
It appears that
DHS is seeking to remove Khalil because he lied on his visa application.
Atleast that is what is being reported.
If true – that is relatively easy to prove and grounds for deportation.
And bypasses all the issues with proving bad conduct while in the US and fighting over what is and is not protected free speech.
But Khalil is not the best free speech case – the graduate student from Tufts appears to be the best case. if you are trying to argue free speech.
#. Parole means they have criminal records. You people are just straight nuts. They aren’t admissible. It’s another Biden crackpot action to get as many criminals in here as possible so they can all be eventually nuked. You think biden was your friend?
I am all for separation of powers and judicial independence. But something smells fishy when the vast majority of nationwide injunctions have been issued against Trump, and around 90% of those are issued by Dem-appointed judges (compared to about 50-50 for the vastly fewer nationwide injunctions against Trump’s predecessors). That statistic alone seems to indicate the judges are politically driven, which undermines their claim to separation of powers and judicial independence.
#. They’re gangsters. This woman just joined the gang of tear up anything just like Mangione and his first kill and the gangsters applauded. It’s part of the gang credo. You MUST destroy. That’s how you join. Mangione has high status now. He needs a tear drop.
https://bsky.app/profile/adambonica.bsky.social/post/3lkommsirqk2q
A survey of the data suggests your “statistic” is incorrect.
“Judges across ideological lines are ruling against Trump at strikingly similar rates (84% liberal, 86% centrist, 82% conservative). This isn’t partisan opposition to Trump—it’s the judiciary functioning as intended by cutting across partisan lines to uphold the Constitution.”
“While liberal judges heard more cases (due to geography and venue selection), the consistency of rulings across ideological lines demolishes the narrative that judicial decisions against Trump reflect political bias.”
I guess a biased site like that would opine that 92.2% of the injunctions coming from Dem-appointed judges does not show political bias. The “demolishes” narrative is not a fact, it is an opinion. I respectfully disagree.
Where is your data source? Or is that just your opinion?
Just google it. The links are not hard to find.
I would add never click on a link from trolls. If they can key your car or loot and burn your business, they’ll infect your computer, too. As oldmanfromkansas points out above, lying is a given.
You missed the point.
Judges appointed by Democratic administrations are rejecting Trump at the SAME rates as judges appointed by GOP administrations. The link provides that evidence.
The fact that a large majority of judges reject Trump is not – ipso facto – evidence of bias.
unless it can be shown that ALL cases involving injunctions are counted. Otherwise you end up with a biased result like most “polls.”
Japan turned into a great, prosperous nation after it got nuked. The same thing should happen to Russia.
Your parents should be so proud having raised such an intelligent moron!
If this is an Executive order to overturn an order, does the Court have a place? I understand both the idea that 500,000 people are depending on a promise, but also this is an Executive right. If nothing else, this is why Executive orders are not the way to go with policy. Congress either yay or nay need to set this policy.
As far as the Judge, it feels like another way to stymie Trump on a policy by declaring each and every person needs a hearing. Once again a National injunction by one Judge. This is going to the Supreme Court.
While I back Trump on his right to an executive order and to undo a previous order by a previous administration, where is due process? Would this Judge back an Executive order to detain these people in camps until they are processed? My other question is do they have standing and are not illegal? This actually matters.
Can a different Judge undue an injunction by another Judge?
Does anyone know where iowan2 went
And I haven’t seen much of Floyd or Squeaky Fromme lately.
“Does anyone know where iowan2 went
And I haven’t seen much of Floyd or Squeaky Fromme lately.”
Could have something to do with the changes here. For example, unregistered commenters no longer have the form to provide an email address and name for consistency (or at least on FF/Linux I no longer have that option).
On MS Windows I am able to click the envelope button, put in an email address and moniker, then hit “reply.” I don’t have to actually register or log in. And the email address can be bogus, as long as it is in the right form (e.g., includes @). I’ve tried a made-up email address, and the only consequence is I get a different avatar.
” I don’t have to actually register or log in. And the email address can be bogus,”
Yes, that is how it was working for me for months. Them a few days ago, more-or-less contemporaneous with this upgrade we have been hearing about, the sub-form for the email address and name disappeared. IIRC, Old Airborne Dog complained that this happened to him a few months ago. I suspect this happened to more than just me this time, judging by a significant reduction in named posters I saw at about that time. I dunno if this indicates buggy WordPress software, updates or less than stellar administration of same, but it is highly annoying.
If, say China, starts terrorizing some of its citizens, say 500,000,000 or so, is the US required to keep as many as can get here as an asylum program?
Let’s try that again.
If China starts harming in some way some of its citizens and 500,000,000 or so come to the US ‘for asylum’ are we required to keep them?
Did the “Half a million parolees” each have an individual review of their case/claim/status/grievance?
If a broad brush worked to get them in, then a broad brush ought to work again, in the same manner, should it not?
The intention of the Biden admin to flood the system was & is painfully obvious.
They knowingly used these people as bait. It was calculated.
And now they pull on the heartstrings of America as these innocent parolees are faced with legal ramifications & realities.
“Elections have consequences” ….. where have I heard that before….;
“Did the “Half a million parolees” each have an individual review of their case/claim/status/grievance?”
Yes, they did. How do you think they were processed when they came in legally? It takes time and resources to vet, and document each individual case. I’m sure you would agree. Now that Elon musk has fired thousands of government workers who do exactly that. How is the government going to process these individual cases within 30 days with a marginalized state department or DHS?
This is how stupid the Trump administration is. They claim a lot of things need to happen to meet their goals but at the same time they actively shrink and remove the resources to do that. In turn they run into trouble legally because every single once of those immigrants is entitled to due process and that takes time and money. Trump’s administration does NOT have the patience for all of that. He wants it done now and that means he wants to bypass rules and regulations that he is legally bound to adhere to. Like any dicator he just wants to kick everyone he doesn’t like out without any form of due process that the constitution requires. He’s already ignoring court orders, what stops him from ignoring Constitutional rights?
Come on dude …. one half of one MILLION people did not get a personal, detailed, individual case review. The math works both ways. Who conducted this interviews? When was it done?
If some downstream NGO employee or federal employees did this, lets see the details.
I’m confident the ” due process” can be reversed engineered.
And spare us the judicial & constitutional sanctimony; Biden ignored a Supreme Court ruling on the student loans; he demonstrably flipped off the Supreme Court. I wont list others, because I know you already feel the sting of your hypocrisy.
The mechanics of CHNV—particularly the online application process—was modeled on the United for Ukraine (U4U) program that began in the spring of 2022 after the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine displaced millions of people. The CHNV process required a U.S.-based sponsor to prove they had the financial means to support the particular CHNV national (referred to as a beneficiary) and to explain why the beneficiary merited parole. If the beneficiary passed background checks, they received authorization to travel to a U.S. airport where they were individually considered for parole by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
It certainly appears not a single person involved with the Obama cabal has any respect for our Constitution or laws whatsoever. Can’t find a one. This is ludicrous. As with virtually everything else the modern left has perpetrated over the past number of years, they know the people don’t approve – the left, in their hubris – simply don’t care. It’s tyrannical, absurd, and utterly obvious at this point.
Guess my AV is just green today. Thinking WordPress glitches are to blame. Nothing we can do about that.
Anyone know what the tariffs are today???
Do you mean this morning or this afternoon.
Yet another jurisdictional overreach.
Hey George and other liberals defending these judges, when the next Democrat president is elected will it be unlawful for said president to undo Trump’s EOs? Will you be fine with a Trump appointed judge in Texas decreeing a nationwide injunction against undoing Trump’s moves?
Hypocrisy is the lodestar of the left. Well that and stupidity. Oh, and just plain old nastiness in the Crockett/Swalwell fashion.
“Will you be fine with a Trump appointed judge in Texas decreeing a nationwide injunction against undoing Trump’s moves?”
Hullbobby, well that depends. If Republicans pass legislation limiting nationwide injunctions they won’t be able to do that. Right now there is the appeals process and that’s how it’s always been done. The only reason why Republicans and MAGAs are upset about these nationwide injunctions is because there are so many lawsuits and challenges to Trump’s EO’s and there are a LOT of them. It’s all a legal process and judges are going to do their jobs as always. Republicans and MAGAs are upset because they are ignorant of how the legal system works.
So…Hullbobby, are you un full support of Congressional Republicans eliminating these kinds of unjunctions? Because it will mean that conservative judges will not be able to put in place national injunctions regarding abortion, DEI, woke policies, etc.
“Hypocrisy is the lodestar of the left. Well that and stupidity. Oh, and just plain old nastiness in the Crockett/Swalwell fashion.”
So Hullbobby seems to agree that he would not be ok with Congress limiting judges imposing nationwide injunctions because it would mean conservative leaning judges will not be able to issue natioinwide injunctions when it comes to abortion, DEI, Woke policies, transgender rights, etc. Yeah, that would be hypocritical.