The Trump administration pleaded with the Supreme Court on Thursday to end a Biden administration-era immigration system that prevents over 500, 000 people from being deported, calling it an unconstitutional overreach that strains U.S. immigration courts.
In March, Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, revoked the contentious parole program, alleging it promoted illegal immigration and failed to provide a valuable pathway to legal status. However, a federal judge on April 14th blocked the Trump administration’s decision, causing the software to be in place and launching a contentious legal battle that has now reached the country’s highest court.
The judges were warned by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department that allowing Joe Biden’s plan to have had put a strain on already stretched immigration authorities by requiring his administration to file lengthy specific treatment proceedings for each of the 532, 000 workers.
This Court has not hesitated to intervene when lower courts violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s ( INA ) orders and usurped the Executive Branch’s authority over immigration policy, according to U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer in the emergency application.
Noem v. Svitlana Doe is at the center of the controversy regarding the Biden administration’s use of curfew authority under the INA, which granted migrants with U.S. based sponsors for two-year work approval and entry to the United States in 2022. The Trump presidency claims the program was a careless exercise of professional judgment that severely harmed border enforcement and national protection by turning a tiny emergency application into a secret pipeline for hundreds of thousands of migrants.
Noem’s cancellation order was upheld by a coalition of campaigning groups represented by the Justice Action Center. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sided with them and declared that a large termination of pardon was unconstitutional without specialized review. The First Circuit’s U.S. Court of Appeals later declined to halt that decision.
” Everyone — sponsors, beneficiaries, communities, and the economy as a whole — benefit from humanitarian parole,” said Karen Tomlin, director of JAC.
In the meantime, the DOJ has criticized the courts for eroding executive branch authority.
According to Sauer,” The Constitution and INA grant the Secretary and the political branches — not the courts — the task of deciding whether it is in the public interest to allow up to 532, 000 aliens who were never admitted, were paroled en masse, and have not been inspected to remain in the country,”
The Supreme Court has given the immigration advocacy groups until May 15 to respond to the Trump administration’s request.
This petition was filed on Thursday in response to a similar one filed by the administration last week, Noem v. National TPS Alliance, which sought to overturn a lower court judge’s decision to halt Noem’s decision to revoke the temporary protection that some Venezuelans had previously been granted.
The plaintiffs ‘ attorneys told the Supreme Court on Thursday to reject the government’s request to end the Biden-era program, arguing that the alleged harm to migrant beneficiaries would outweigh the alleged harm to the United States.
COURT SHOWDOWN LOOKS OVER TRUMP PLAN TO END BIDEN’S MIGRANT PAROLE
Plaintiffs would have retained TPS for a few more months during expedited litigation if the Court denied a stay at this time but the government eventually prevailed. The government has not provided any proof that this delay has caused or will cause any irreparable harm, according to lawyers for the Venezuelan TPS recipients, noting that it will endow work authorizations to as many as 350, 000 people in the nation.
Trump’s second-term policies are currently facing over 200 legal challenges, so this case is yet another illustration of how the administration has relied on the Supreme Court to bypass lower court restraints and advance its goals.
