While President Donald Trump has seen multiple immigration orders challenged in court, he has also seen several of those efforts to block his agenda reversed by a higher court’s ruling.
Such was the case this week, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel struck down an injunction that blocked the Trump administration from rescinding decades-old “temporary” protections for migrants from specific nations, as reported by the Daily Wire.
“Extraordinary and temporary conditions”
The case hinged on decisions in 2017 and 2018 by the Department of Homeland Security to terminate the Temporary Protected Status of migrants from Sudan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Haiti.
Those countries had previously been granted the congressionally authorized status due to the armed conflict, natural disasters, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” preventing their safe return.
Considering the multiple extensions of many such protections, however, critics say the status is, in reality, anything but temporary. Sudanese migrants received the TPS in 1997 due to a civil war, followed two years later by Nicaragua in the wake of a hurricane.
In 2001, a trio of earthquakes led migrants from that nation to receive the protection, while a major earthquake was also responsible for the 2010 status granted to Haitians.
A class-action lawsuit filed in 2018 challenged the DHS decision to terminate the status, arguing that the agency did not follow proper procedures and were potentially influenced by the Trump administration’s “animus” toward certain immigrant populations.
“Abused its discretion”
A district judge agreed and imposed an injunction that prohibited the department from moving forward with its termination efforts. That ruling was eventually appealed, however, and a 2-1 appeals court ruling allows the plan to continue.
“The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring the implementation of the termination decisions,” wrote Judge Consuelo Callahan in the majority opinion. “On appeal, the Government argues that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction because Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on either of their claims. We agree.”
National Review’s Ed Whelan addressed the issue in an article concluding that it “might seem surprising that there would be any controversy” over the decision to terminate temporary protections granted as much as 23 years ago.
This development provides the latest example of the Trump administration’s commitment to real immigration reform.
The appeals court ruling gives him another win.