Supreme Court lets Trump strip legal protections from 500,000 people, exposing more to deportation
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million.
The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision comes after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case.
The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented.
The administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration’s push to end the program. The Justice Department argues that the protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the Biden-era policies weren’t in line with immigration law. “We are confident in the legality of our actions to protect the American people and look forward to further action from the Supreme Court to vindicate us,” she said.
But Karen Tumlin, founder and director of Justice Action Center, said the decision has “effectively greenlit” deportation orders for a half-million people.
“I cannot overstate how devastating this is,” she said. The court “allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities.”
Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S. In a 2024 presidential debate, Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio, including those with legal status under the humanitarian parole program, were abducting and eating pets, court documents note.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent to Friday's ruling that the effect of the high court’s order is “to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift it.
The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, did allow the Trump administration to revoke parole, but on a case-by-case basis.
But the Trump administration argued the parole was granted en masse, and the law doesn’t require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a “gargantuan task,” and slow the government’s efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued.
Joe Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952.
Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with “instability, dangers and deprivations,” as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years.
The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration’s moves “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”
The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration.
The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
最高法院允許川普剝奪 50 萬人的法律保護，更多人面臨被驅逐出境的風險
版主： 牛河梁
#3 Re: 最高法院允許川普剝奪 50 萬人的法律保護，更多人面臨被驅逐出境的風險
什么是due process？
法院只需要问一个问题，最初进入米国是合法进入到吗？
是，留下来继续due process审理留米申请；不是，先送出米国继续due process审理留米申请。
法院只需要问一个问题，最初进入米国是合法进入到吗？
是，留下来继续due process审理留米申请；不是，先送出米国继续due process审理留米申请。
+2.00 积分 [版主 牛河梁 发放的奖励]
#4 Re: 最高法院允許川普剝奪 50 萬人的法律保護，更多人面臨被驅逐出境的風險
这不是我选前科普的，这些吃猫吃狗的，分分钟就可以变成无证的，装什么合法移民
cng 写了： 2025年 5月 30日 13:59 Supreme Court lets Trump strip legal protections from 500,000 people, exposing more to deportation
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million.
The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision comes after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case.
The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented.
The administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration’s push to end the program. The Justice Department argues that the protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the Biden-era policies weren’t in line with immigration law. “We are confident in the legality of our actions to protect the American people and look forward to further action from the Supreme Court to vindicate us,” she said.
But Karen Tumlin, founder and director of Justice Action Center, said the decision has “effectively greenlit” deportation orders for a half-million people.
“I cannot overstate how devastating this is,” she said. The court “allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities.”
Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S. In a 2024 presidential debate, Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio, including those with legal status under the humanitarian parole program, were abducting and eating pets, court documents note.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent to Friday's ruling that the effect of the high court’s order is “to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift it.
The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, did allow the Trump administration to revoke parole, but on a case-by-case basis.
But the Trump administration argued the parole was granted en masse, and the law doesn’t require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a “gargantuan task,” and slow the government’s efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued.
Joe Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952.
Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with “instability, dangers and deprivations,” as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years.
The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration’s moves “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”
The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration.
The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
If printing money would end poverty, printing diplomas would end stupidity.
#5 Re: 最高法院允許川普剝奪 50 萬人的法律保護，更多人面臨被驅逐出境的風險
“Due process” 是一个法律术语，中文常译为“正当程序”或“法定程序”，是法治社会的核心原则之一，尤其在美国宪法和司法体系中具有极高的重要性。geust 写了： 2025年 5月 30日 18:05 什么是due process？
法院只需要问一个问题，最初进入米国是合法进入到吗？
是，留下来继续due process审理留米申请；不是，先送出米国继续due process审理留米申请。
⸻
基本定义：Due process（正当程序） 指政府在剥夺一个人“生命、自由或财产”之前，必须遵循公正、合理、合法的程序。
⸻
出处与法律依据：在美国，它来自两条重要宪法条款：
• 第五修正案（适用于联邦政府）：
“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
• 第十四修正案（适用于各州政府）：
“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
⸻
Due Process 包含两类核心内容：1. 程序性正当程序（Procedural Due Process）
• 强调“过程是否公平”。
• 要求政府在执法时给予个人：
• 正式通知（notice）
• 听证或申诉的机会（hearing）
• 中立的裁决者（impartial judge）
例子：
• 政府不能在不通知你的情况下直接没收你的财产或遣返你；
• 被捕后有权获知罪名、有律师、接受审判等。
⸻
2. 实质性正当程序（Substantive Due Process）
• 强调“法律本身是否合理、公正”。
• 即使政府按照程序办事，如果法律本身侵犯了基本权利，也可被认定违反了 due process。
例子：
• 法院曾以实质性正当程序为由，推翻了一些限制堕胎、婚姻、育儿等基本自由的法律。
⸻
对比中文语境：在中文法律中，“正当程序”往往强调：
• 程序公正；
• 法律面前人人平等；
• 保障当事人知情权、辩护权、申诉权等。
虽然没有完全等同的词汇，但“正当法律程序”或“依法行政”最为接近。