SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
venezuela
Supreme Court Allows Trump to End Protections for Some Venezuelans
"The humanitarian and economic impact of the court's decision will be felt immediately," said one attorney who challenged the Trump administration's push to remove Venezuelans from the country.
May 19, 2025
A lawyer who challenged the Trump administration's push to revoke protections for Venezuelan migrants said Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court had taken the "largest single action stripping any group of noncitizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history" as the justices ruled the White House could move forward with its effort.
The court issued an unsigned order with no reasoning or indication of how the justices voted, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that she would not have overturned a lower court decision that had kept Venezuelans' Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in place.
The decision allows President Donald Trump to repeal protections that the Biden administration provided for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who have lived and worked in the U.S., pending appeal of the case.
"That the Supreme Court authorized this action in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking," said lawyer Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy. "The humanitarian and economic impact of the court's decision will be felt immediately."
Venezuelans had been set to have protections from deportation through October 2026 under the action taken by former President Joe Biden at the end of his presidency.
"The administration's move to end TPS throws out people who are contributing substantially to our economy."
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem rescinded the protections in February, partially over the administration's claim that many Venezuelan migrants are members of the street gang Tren de Aragua, which the White House had claimed works directly with Venezuela's government. Intelligence agencies have rejected that allegation.
The White House has also used those claims to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center—but reports indicate many of the people who have been sent there are not connected to the gang.
"These are innocent people who have lawfully built lives here under TPS," said U.S. Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) on Monday. "Not terrorists or criminals like Donald Trump wants you to believe."
Seven Venezuelan migrants were joined by the National TPS Alliance in suing the Trump administration to block Noem's action in February; a federal judge in Northern California then paused the action, saying it was likely driven by racial bias and violated procedural rules.
The plaintiffs said in legal filings that Noem "explicitly relied on false, negative stereotypes... to justify both the vacatur and termination decisions. Her statements conflated Venezuelan TPS holders with 'dirt bags,' gang members, and dangerous criminals."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Monday denounced the administration's plan to move forward with deporting Venezuelans en masse following to Supreme Court ruling.
"The administration's move to end TPS throws out people who are contributing substantially to our economy," said Jayapal. "Economists have warned that the administration's cruel moves on ending TPS for those who have committed no crimes and are here working will have enormous economic consequences, disrupt businesses, increase prices for consumers, and lead to deeper labor shortages."
"It is shameful that the Trump administration would pull the rug out from so many Venezuelans who came into this country lawfully," she said, "fleeing untold violence and devastation in their home country."
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, noted that "country conditions still meet the legal standard for maintaining TPS" for Venezuelans.
"If you check the U.S. State Department website today, it continues to advise Americans not to travel to Venezuela, citing threats of torture, kidnapping, and civil unrest," said Schulte. "As we wait to fully understand the implications of this decision, we urge the Trump administration to keep work authorizations in place and abandon this cruel and unlawful effort to strip protections from individuals contributing to our country every single day."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Extends Block on Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
One attorney in the case called the ruling "a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
May 16, 2025
For the second time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration's dubious use of an 18th century law to deport immigrants including at least one person with protected status without due process.
In a 7-2 ruling—with far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissenting—the high court found that President Donald Trump violated Venezuelan migrants' right to due process as a class by trying to fast-track their deportation to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act during peacetime.
The ruling is not a repudiation of Alien Enemies Act deportations and focuses solely on migrants' due process rights.
"Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"The detainees' interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty," the court's opinion states. "Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"But it is not optimal for this court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case," the court continued and, referring to the federal appellate court that "erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction," said that "we remand the case to the 5th Circuit for that purpose."
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead counsel in the case, said Friday that "the court's decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
"The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance," Gelernt added.
The Supreme Court opinion noted the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man with protected status who was wrongfully deported to CECOT in March. Last month, the high court unanimously ruled that Trump must facilitate Abrego García's return to the United States. The Trump administration has resisted the order, despite the president proclaiming that "if the Supreme Court said, 'Bring somebody back,' I would do that."
Steve Vadeck, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, toldCNN Friday that "because lower courts have blocked use of the [Alien Enemies Act] in every other district in which the president has sought to invoke it, that means it's effectively pausing all removals under the act until the 5th Circuit—and, presumably, the Supreme Court itself—conclusively resolves whether they're legal and how much process is due if so."
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines—who was appointed by Trump—issued the first court ruling supporting Alien Enemies Act deportations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gabbard Fires Intel Officials After Memo Counters Trump Lies About Migrants Sent to El Salvador Prison
Critics called the ousters "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
May 14, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial director of national intelligence, is generating alarm this week for firing two top officials after a memo contradicting the administration's claims about deported migrants was made public.
As Fox News first reported Tuesday, Gabbard fired Mike Collins, acting chair of the National Intelligence Council, and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, and moved the NIC from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
As The Hilldetailed:
Collins has spent nearly three decades in the intelligence community and has served as chief of staff for the CIA's deputy director. He started his career as an analyst focused on East Asia.
Langan-Riekhof also has more than 30 years of experience in the intelligence community, including as an expert on the Middle East. The ODNI previously listed her as an exceptional analyst. She also previously served as director of the Strategic Futures Group at the National Intelligence Council.
While an ODNI spokesperson told The Hill that "the director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community," critics framed the firings as "the DEFINITION of politicizing intelligence."
"I am concerned about the apparent removal of senior leadership at the National Intelligence Council without any explanation except vague accusations made in the media," Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, toldThe Washington Post. "Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the president's agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical."
The NIC leaders were fired after last week's release of an NIC memo confirming that U.S. intelligence agencies never agreed with Trump's claim that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro controls the criminal gang Tren de Aragua. The April 7 document states that "while Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
Although, as the Post noted, "it was unclear what, if any, direct role Collins or Langan-Riekhof had in drafting the assessment," its release provoked pushback from Gabbard, who said last week that it was "outrageous that as President Trump and his administration work hard every day to make America safe by deporting these violent criminals, some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president's agenda to keep the American people safe."
Trump has used dubious claims about Maduro controlling the gang to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center as part of his mass deportation agenda.
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on social media Wednesday: "Gabbard is purging intelligence officials over a report that the Trump administration finds politically inconvenient. Whatever the administration is trying to protect... it's not our national security."
Other critics called Gabbard's moves "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
The U.S. intelligence community (IC) "provides analysis independent of policy preferences," said James Madison University professor and former CIA analyst Stephen Marrin. "When those in power do not want to hear inconvenient facts and unwanted interpretation and punish messengers that provide it, that undermines the reason the IC was created in the first place."
Jonathan Panikoff, a former career U.S. intelligence officer who is now a director in the Atlantic Council's Middle East Program, said that "having spent five years working at the NIC, I can personally attest the [organization] is the heartbeat of apolitical U.S. all-source analysis, traditionally drawing the best of the IC's analysts together to tackle and produce assessments on the hardest issues. Anything that reduces its independence because policymakers don't like the independent conclusions it reaches, is the definition of politicization they are decrying. Mike and Maria are unbelievable leaders and IC professionals, not political actors."
Eric Brewer, who also worked for NIC, expressed full agreement with Panikoff's "excellent comments" and issued his own warning.
"This is a big deal. The result will be an IC less willing to tell the president and other leaders what they need to know rather than what they want to hear. America will be less secure because of it," Brewer said. "The professionals in the IC can withstand a lot, and will no doubt do their utmost to continue to provide objective assessments. But this act is blatant politicization and will have a chilling effect."
The memo that seemingly led to the NIC firings was revealed as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Lauren Harper, the group's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, shared the Post's reporting about the ousters on social media Wednesday along with an observation.
"The director of national intelligence's FOIA website (which has reappeared after the entire site was briefly down) no longer has a reading room of released documents or links to its FOIA regulations which, were we to be picky, violates the EFOIA amendments of 1996," Harper highlighted. "Amazing timing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular