In August, some of us expressed doubts over the ruling of San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson enjoining an effort to end Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for migrants from different countries, citing sufficient racial animus. Now, a unanimous panel just stayed that order in a major win for the Trump Administration, which will now be allowed to revoke deportation protections for citizens from Nicaragua, Nepal, and Honduras.
A panel composed of Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins (a Clinton appointee), Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan (George W. Bush appointee), and Circuit Judge Eric Miller (Trump appointee) ruled that the district court erred in its injunction.
The decision follows the Supreme Court’s recent order to stay lower court orders blocking the termination of TPS for Venezuela.
Notably, the program was meant to be “temporary,” but judges such as Judge Thompson have treated it as effectively permanent with these injunctions. The TPS for Nicaragua was issued in 1999, over a quarter of a century ago.
The allegation of racial animus is hard to square with the overall effort of the Administration to not only end TPS programs but to carry out its promised mass deportation of those who came into the country illegally regardless of their country of origin.
The panel acknowledged the obvious in ruling against the district court given the recent Supreme Court decision:
We are not writing on a blank slate, however, because the Supreme Court has twice stayed district court orders blocking the Secretary’s vacatur of TPS for Venezuela. See Noem v. National TPS All., 146 S. Ct. 23 (2025); Noem v. National TPS All., 145 S. Ct. 2728 (2025). Those orders contained no reasoning, so they do not inform our analysis of the legal issues in this case, and the issues in any event are not identical. But the stay applications involved similar assertions of harm by both parties, and we have been admonished that the Court’s stay orders must inform “how [we] should exercise [our] equitable discretion in like cases.” Trump v. Boyle, 145 S. Ct. 2653, 2654 (2025). We therefore conclude that the equitable factors favor a stay.
As I discussed earlier, the judicial efforts to enjoin the ending of TPS programs actually work against future such programs. Presidents can now see that allowing immigrants into the country temporarily can be treated as granting a permanent status.
The same is true with the equally dubious rulings of judges such as District Judge Indira Talwani in 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).
It also raises more questions about recent rulings, such as Judge Ana C. Reyes’s in Washington. I criticized her decision last week in denying the termination of the TPS program.
The Ninth Circuit decision reflects a pattern of reversals for these district court judges in seeking to block the Trump Administration’s efforts to deport the millions of individuals admitted into the country under the Biden and earlier administrations.
Hurrah! It well overtime to get ride of the Nicaraguans. There is a long list of negatives about them, but they are not worth listing.
Put it this way, They come here to ‘Take’ not give or have a respect for Our country.
Frm. President Daniel Ortega and (wife) President Rosario Murillo need to be Nicolás Maduro’ed (ASAP).
The Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN – Ortega/Murillo’s Party ‘Sandinistas’) has been a an internal threat to the US for far to long.
Nicaragua’s subsistence on U.S. money sent home to Nicaragua by Nicaraguan Nationals and Nicaraguan born – Naturalized Citizens should have been stopped decades ago. Same for the rest (Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela, …) If these Countries don’t want to change to the way we do business here in North America, then its time for Regime Change. Time to secure North America from 100 Miles into Northern Columbia to the North Pole (this includes Greenland and Iceland). Pull/Close the Military Bases from around the World and Redeploy to the North American theater. DEFENSE. Europe can fend for itself.
They are plenty of Communist dressed in the name of Democracy here in the US already.
Senator Mark Kelly released a new online video on Thursday reminding the nation’s bartenders that they are allowed to refuse Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s orders.
Staring stonily into the camera, the former astronaut warned that, if Hegseth appears to be above the legal blood-alcohol limit, any additional drink request would constitute an illegal order.
“Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders,” he told the bartenders. “You must refuse illegal orders.”
Kelly concluded the video with one final urgent plea to the mixologists: “If Hegseth’s behavior is belligerent, his words are slurred, and his makeup is smeared, you must refuse his orders.”
@anon 09:20 re: “Kelly concluded the video with one final urgent plea”. Attack the individual with gossip information – evidence is irrelevant.
In today’s environment (as beautifully illustrated in “rage”),
Kelly’s message was: drink the kool-aid and attack the person.
Example: The progression of NDSAP classification to justify genocide, or the “Counter-revolutionary activities” categorization used by those self-classified “Revolutionary Tribunal”, Jacobins, les sans-culottes, les tricoteuses, . . . to guillotine many, and accidentally miss Thomas Paine).
For those who have taken both oaths multiple times(judicial process & constitutional), there are two sets of information in the judicial system: 1) Blotter 2) Investigative. Professionals understand that Investigative information is exactly that – it is used to create or defend cases THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, and those oaths (especially if using 28 CFR 23 systems). It is to be used in the judicial process where it can be presented, assessed, and defended – NOT BY SENDING TO THE PRESS WHERE DEFENSE IS JUST a “Have you stopped beating your wife” message generation process by the attacker. Dissemination of that information (leakage) violates those oaths and, and is in many cases, illegal. It should NEVER be used outside the system because some of that “evidence” is inadmissible (e.g., hearsay, “I heard X say that POTUS is a pedophile”).
Congress has established itself as a kangaroo court of propagandists (modern Revolutionary Tribunal), and use processes to generate falsehood and propaganda. The abuse of this process has humiliated those who believe in a judicial system – for all its warts.
OT; I thought spying on congressmen was a big deal with Republicans. Apparently Trump’s DOJ is spying on Congressional Democrats research history. How did they get the information about each of their search histories and what they searched? Looks like they are just fine with spying on Congressmen. So it seems Biden or Obama were legally “spying” on congressmen. Interesting.
Key word: Apparently. He’s guessing, is what he’s saying.
Source: Trust me bro!
” I thought spying on congressmen was a big deal with Republicans.”
Xlax, it is. Do you realize the data under discussion at the DOJ are audit logs, so any expectation that what a comment reviews isn’t under observation is wrong.
Let us bottom line this whole discussion. Anyone who enters this country illegally or overstays their visa is here illegally. BY LAW the US government is authorized to remove them. That process involves court appearance with representation.
If that process has been followed what possible reason could there be for any court to block removal?
Perhaps one of you geniuses could explain that.
How do federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear what are essentially immigration cases?
There may absolutely be legitimate, case-specific reasons for judicial review even when someone entered unlawfully. Congress created asylum, trafficking protections, and other forms of relief for a reason. Those claims should be evaluated individually and as efficiently as possible.
The separate question is whether one district judge, based on one case, should halt enforcement nationwide. That is a structural issue about judicial scope, not about whether individuals deserve due process.
Case-by-case review makes sense. System-wide injunctions are a different constitutional debate.
May… should … question … not about … makes sense? So in actual fact, you’re fictionalizing aka suppositions… guessing. Get back to us when you have something relevant to add.
You should write novels instead. Constitutional law is not your domain.
Gotta ask, do you have on your resume that your a commenter on Turley’s blog?
Olly, isn’t that what they are doing now, case by case reviews? That is what is overwhelming the courts now and why AUSA’s are quitting en masse over the overwhelming case loads. It’s also the reason why DHS is disobeying court orders to release detainees because they have rights to bond hearings.
The TPS issue may not be “nationwide” because it applies to a specific group instead or…it may be that it applies only to the circuit of which the court is in. Either way there is still a lot of “territory” a district court’s ruling can apply to.
From a citizen’s perspective, it seems like removals are already handled case by case, and the backlog and strain on the courts are very real. That’s a capacity problem inside the system. But due process requirements don’t disappear just because the caseload is heavy.
A bond hearing for an individual detainee is different from a district judge halting enforcement nationwide. One addresses a specific statutory right in a specific case. The other raises structural questions about how far a single district court’s authority should reach.
On TPS, because it is created by statute and applies to a defined group nationwide, any ruling about it will naturally have broader effects. That’s different from a judge independently expanding relief beyond what the statute itself contemplates.
Wow, tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without actually telling me. I love reading your nonsense.
The Judges are doing nationwide injunctions/refusals despite the Supreme Court telling them they cannot. A foundation of common law is that relief may only be granted to the person in front of the judge. No one else is eligible. JT has actually done articles on that and it’s something learned the first half of 1L year in law school.
“AUSA’s quitting en masse.” What a lark. I have a friend who quit, not because of Trump or the caseload, but because there was a review of anyone less than 2 years in (probation) and he fit that bill. He just didn’t want to wonder if he would stay. He loved his boss, the light caseload, and all the resources that AUSAs have access to.
So, he went to the State’s AG office. Others he worked with went private or went in the County Prosecutors office. The AUSA’s offices have been a political dumpster fire since Obama started to restructure them 18 years ago. I know some who’re just waiting out the clock now but have been miserable since then (long before Trump part 1). And yet none I’ve spoken with or worked with have ever complained about the workload. I know County Prosecutors with 10x the workload and less resources (I live in a major city so that shouldn’t be a surprise).
And those ninys who quit in Minnesota or NY in “protest”? They were all never Trumpers and made that vocally clear. It wasn’t workload. It was Orange Man Bad. Being political will likely help them land on their feet in private practice. If they go private, you know it was all political theatre.
AUSA’s, often like Judges, think they can pick and choose what directives to follow and what to ignore. Doesn’t work that way. You have prosecutorial discretion, not assignment discretion.
“There may absolutely be legitimate, case-specific reasons for judicial review even when someone entered unlawfully. Congress created asylum, trafficking protections, and other forms of relief for a reason. ”
Then I think we should advocate that a method be added to the law for an immigrant to invoke those protections upon entry by immediately presenting him or herself to authorities, be granted a prompt hearing, and if found eligible, be declared a legal exception to the general rule. If that was in place, a failure to apply for the exception could be seen to constitute ineligibility for it, and deportation could proceed unimpeded. Much simpler and more foolproof for everyone involved, imo.
If something like what wrote above is already in place, and heavy caseload is the impediment, then there should be quarantined holding areas established for applicants awaiting decisions. At minimum, an applicant awaiting a hearing should be issued identification as such, possibly in conjunction with a tracking bracelet, be subject to restrictions on where he or she can go, and the condition imposed that failure to produce that id on demand, or removal/disposal of the tracking device, constitutes a felony punishable by immediate deportation, or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. H311, I am subject to similar restrictions on my Second Amendment right to bear arms, are these immigrants eligible for more due process than I am?
Congress should be stress-testing its own laws. Instead of fixing root flaws, we layer on another exception and call it reform. Over time you don’t get clarity, you get a Rube Goldberg statute that rewards the people who know how to game it.
Those case specific reasons if any should be addressed by the immigration court or by the immigration appeals process.
“BY LAW the US government is authorized to remove them”
I think it might be more accurately stated that “by law the US government is COMPELLED to remove them”…
TPS, by another name, is “camel’s nose under the tent.” This is how the Democrats give permanent residence for future voters. Thanks for revoking the TPS. We never wanted them, and don’t need them. The sinking ship should jettison excess baggage.
Please stay on board.
Funny how the Professor neglected to point out the ninth circuit first sided with the district judge before issuing this new ruling. As usual Turley did not tell the whole story.
“ It also raises more questions about recent rulings, such as Judge Ana C. Reyes’s in Washington. I criticized her decision last week in denying the termination of the TPS program.”
The ninth circuit actually ruled in favor of the Haitians in this case citing Kristi Noems unlawful termination of TPS for Haitians.
It seems Turley is conflating a bunch or related cases that the ninth agreed to not stay the district judges rulings at first. But the case of the Haitians is not part of this new ruling.
LOL! Good one george. Really appreciate your humor every day. You go big fella.
“Impeach them” and “despot” are both lazy. Judicial review is necessary. But nationwide injunctions from a single district judge are a bad design choice because they turn every policy fight into judge-shopping and emergency appeals.
Congress should limit nationwide relief and build an expedited review path. That protects the courts and the executive at the same time.
Judicial review is necessary. Really, because you say so, a non-constitutional lawyer. I don’t think you could argue your way out of a small claims action against a bunch of 5th graders.
Lots of “shoulds” in your naive interpretations.
No law degree required to read Article III and two centuries of precedent. Judicial review has been settled doctrine since Marbury. Even a basic understanding of civics makes that clear. The real debate is not whether review exists. It is how far a single district judge’s equitable power should extend and how quickly higher courts should weigh in.
Spot on.
Your purported analysis is irrelevant and useless to the current issue.
You’re always focusing and analyzing nonissues, defecting the the actual facts of the matter. Again, useless input.
As for that law degree, you obviously do not have or had one. You would realize the uselessness in arguing an issue that doesn’t exist.
Olly is an arm chair lawyer. Lots of those here.
Required you say? Would help with the credibility issue. Reading it and comprehending it are two different issues with you. You keep repeating yourself (like george) and can’t make a conclusion, just piling up words without rhyme or reason. Basic understanding of civics? But only if you had that. You don’t.
I will admit to memory loss at times but didn’t the Supreme court limit, restrict or otherwise strike district court judges like this one from nationwide injunctions? If so why is this even an issue for the 9th or any other circuit court?
I had to check on this myself. It appears the Supreme Court has criticized nationwide injunctions and some justices have questioned their historical basis, but the Court hasn’t issued a decision prohibiting them. Until it does, district courts can still issue them and the circuits still have to review them.
Adios Amigos!! Thanks for visiting!
hey, hey, hey, come back here. Take your lumps just like everyone else.
The low level left-wing activist district judges are a serious threat to our Republic and need to be stopped. The district court wasn’t designed to help one party stop the agenda of the duly elected opposing party president from achieving his agenda.
District court judges are not so “low level” as you imply. They have great sway. Wanna get rid of them? Too late. Could try a civil war, round them up and … I’m not into violence, so count me out.
Judges, appointed for life, view themselves as little gods, each thinking his or her rulings can tie up an entire, duly-elected presidential administration. Far from being viewed as a coequal branch of government, the federal judiciary acts as though it is the supreme authority over the entire government, on each and every decision that it decides merits attention.
Are or were you a judge at the district level? Not me, but this much I know, they do represent Americans for good or for bad. Its the system you decided to live in. Now you have doubts? No solution available until the SCOTUS weighs in and that’s unlikely. The system favors the DC judges. .
“Are or were you a judge at the district level?”
No.
And I’ve also never been a commercial pilot. And yet, I’m absolutely certain that a drunk pilot is a disaster.
Great analogy. You just forgot to make it relevant.
A commercial pilot who decides, solely on his own authority, without recourse to current established standards, when and where to fly, what routes and altitudes to take, and whether he can cut off another plane to take off or land, would be an unmitigated disaster. However, the example pilot would have one saving virtue over an activist judge. He would get to make an egregious error a very limited number of times before he perished in a crash (with all of his passengers, unfortunately), unlike our activist judges, who are a gift that keeps on giving, ad nauseam. Like that better?
Again, where does the Constitution grant each of America’s 677 District Court judges veto power over the President? It doesn’t even mention the district courts at all. It merely alludes to their possibility.
By way of the fact that the Constitution establishes a federal judiciary . 677 vs. 1. My money is on the DC judges for the win.
Re: “Where does the Constitution grant….” It doesn’t other than to Anonymous and its minions.
Oh oh Johnny is pissed. How did you know we are minions? What gave us away?
Swallow this: Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. This means the Constitution mandates a Supreme Court but gives Congress the authority to create lower federal courts and define their structure and jurisdiction.
So what’s it taste like Johnny?
Here is where the correction is needed. Immigration judges should havd been established as article III judges not article II judges. When the immigration law was written no one believed that ANY AMERICAN judge or not would protect those who entered by breaking our laws.
Sadly immigration judges are now virtually useless and the result of crimminal negligence surrounding border enforcement will be difficult to rectify.
Immigration courts being housed in the executive branch is not an accident. Congress designed it that way. The deeper issue is the administrative structure itself.
When agencies write rules, enforce them, and adjudicate them internally, it concentrates power inside one branch.
Article III courts still provide review, but whether that safeguard is sufficient is a legitimate constitutional debate.
If Congress believes separation of powers has eroded, it has the authority to redesign the system.
Smart. A good one.
“If Congress believes separation of powers has eroded, it has the authority to redesign the system.”
As, in fact, do we all (sorry, you will need to remove the asterisks from link, since the reference to this subject matter is consistently being censored on this site:
c*o*n*v*e*n*t*i*o*n*o*f*s*t*a*t*e*s.c*o*m
These district court judges are either suffering from extreme TDS, where they will attempt to stop any initiative or policy proposed by President Trump, or, more likely, they are knowingly and intentionally trying to undermine the rule of law and destroy this nation. They should be impeached.
Impeached? Because you think they’re a threat to a madman’s despotic rule?
Obviously you were never a wise lawyer.
good morning Anonymous
obviously your in the grip of TDS, get back on your meds immidiately
Good morning Anonymous!
Was gonna say the same thing to you.
Clean up your grammar before commenting. Not a good look. People will think you’re illiterate.
think?
Re: Impeached? Take this, and the rest of its issue from whence it comes, ya’ll. The existential threats to our Constitutional Republic dwell in the mindsets of this lot, and they would have in their thrall if we bend to them.
Ya”ll own guns? Thought so. Then you’re as much of a threat as those transsexual mass murderers making you a clear and present danger to all Americans. Existential like. Ya feel me? And good morning to you.
People of your mindset are the greatest threat to our Republic in history. It is the 2nd amendment that ensures the first amendment and so much more. Without the 2nd amendment and the weapons we possess People with your mindset would have already created a dictatorship in the USA. Molon Labe.
And what mindset is that good sir? You are clearly an existential threat to society.
Molon Labe huh? You clown. Why don’t you go take a bullet for us then eh?
I’m guessing you’re a 5’1″ little person with a mighty big attitude problem. So, do you sleep with your guns or just or brothers in arms?
“People of your mindset are the greatest threat to our Republic in history. ”
They are, but possibly not only for the reasons typically assumed. Ever consider that he/she/it might want the rest of us disarmed to give free reign to the proliferation of woke/tranny mass murderers currently on the loose? If they can’t out-vote us, maybe they figure they can kill us all. They cannot possibly do that, but may be too demented to realize that.
“madman’s despotic rule” The TDS is strong with this one today!
Maybe its just being provocative and you fell for it.
Yeah, maybe, But if Jefferson couldn’t get Samuel Chase impeached & convicted for far greater abuses than these, we both know conviction won’t happen.
“As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book, Grand Inquests, some people expressed opinions at the time of Chase’s trial that the Senate had absolute latitude in convicting a jurist it found unfit, but the acquittal set an unofficial precedent that judges would not be impeached based on their performance on the bench. All judges impeached since Chase have been accused of outright criminality.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges (yeah, I know – lousy source as a cite, but it was early, still sleepy, and operating without caffeine at this point)
Great research. Let wikipedia do the heavy lifting.
Question, what was your area of law? Small claims?