Court spanks Noem

[Rideback]

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
"YES!!! COURT *SPANKS* NOEM, DHS, ET AL, IN THEIR EFFORT TO REVOKE TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS (TPS) FOR IMMIGRANTS FROM HONDURAS, NICARAGUA, AND NEPAL!!
And the first paragraph of the order is sublime!:
"The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood. The Court disagrees."
WOW!!!
The court then goes through a description of *each* of the plaintiffs, explaining not only that they are in the country legally (as they currently have TPS), but explaining how they have contributed to society, and what would happen if they lost that status and were forced to go back to their home country. Here's just one example of many (there are 17 individual plaintiffs along with an organization):
"J.L. is 60 years old, a native of Nicaragua, and has lived in the United States for almost 30 years. For the past 20 years, J.L. has worked as a manufacturing technician in a semiconductor factory. He has a pacemaker and takes daily medication to manage for heart failure. Without TPS, he would lose his job, his driver’s license, and access to healthcare. He worries that he would not receive adequate medical care and face political persecution in Nicaragua."
Now, what the plaintiffs in the case are asking for is a *postponement* of the termination of their status while pursuing legal action.
What's more - remember the whole universal injunction thing, and how I explained that the Supreme Court didn't *really* do away with them, just explained what was needed to do it, and how the Supreme Court also pointed out that class actions accomplish much the same thing? Well here's what the Court has to say about that:
"Although Defendants argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Casa precludes a postponement or stay, Trump v. Casa involved universal injunctions and explicitly did not “resolve the distinct question of whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action.” Trump v. Casa is also factually distinguishable from the facts of the instant case because Trump v. Casa involved from the President’s executive order. In comparison, Plaintiffs here seek relief from an agency action - not an action by the president....
...Finally, limiting postponement to the individual Plaintiffs here would be impractical. Although Defendants assert that USCIS could issue individual notices that continue the benefits for named Plaintiffs under TPS, Defendants fail to offer how Defendants would coordinate with Plaintiffs’ employers, the states and cities of counties in which Plaintiffs reside, hospitals, ICE, and local law enforcement to ensure that Plaintiffs are not subject to removal or otherwise detained after the TPS terminations go into effect. Any error in coordination or communication would result in a direct violation of the TPS statute. See 8 U.S.C. 1254a(d)(4) (“An alien provided
temporary protected status under this section shall not be detained by the Attorney General on the basis of the alien’s immigration status in the United States.”)."
Noem filed a notice that the TPS for all Hondurans, Nicaraguans, and Nepalese would be terminated on August 5th.
Here's the actual order:
"Having considered the parties’ briefs, the relevant legal authority, oral argument, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion to postpone. The Court orders that the TPS terminations shall be postponed to preserve the status quo and until a hearing on the merits on November 18, 2025. Postponement will be subject to extension at the November 18, 2025 hearing."
November. Nice. And that opening line? (chef’s kiss)