Legal Challenges Escalate as Trump Administration Moves to Restore Order to TPS Program
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to limit activist judges’ interference with the Trump administration’s efforts to end Temporary Protected Status, left-wing advocates are launching new legal maneuvers to delay the return of migrants from several countries.
Federal courts are now facing a barrage of lawsuits from activist groups determined to block the Trump administration’s responsible plan to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Haiti, Syria, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Burma, Somalia, and Yemen. The Supreme Court’s June decision correctly found that lower courts have no authority to second-guess the Homeland Security secretary’s decisions, but unfortunately left the door open for further constitutional challenges.
Lawyers for TPS recipients are now exploiting the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, claiming that ending TPS somehow deprives migrants of liberty and property interests like work permits and protection from removal. They also argue—contrary to the administration’s interpretation—that the Secretary of Homeland Security has overstepped her authority, insisting that power should rest with the Attorney General, despite the clear statutory framework.
Judges in Boston and Chicago, bowing to activist pressure, have ordered that TPS designations for Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Burma remain in effect while these dubious new arguments are considered. “Everyone’s trying to do procedural wrangling to keep the initial orders that prevented the termination in place for long enough to argue these new claims,” said Shane Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group known for its leftist legal activism.
The Justice Department maintains, as it should, that the Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the administration’s full authority to end TPS designations, emphasizing that the responsibility lies with the secretary.
Meanwhile, separate litigation from Haitian TPS holders is seeking to dredge up claims of racial animus, despite the Supreme Court already rejecting such baseless accusations, though the legal process allows them to continue their fishing expedition.
The outcome of these cases will determine whether the administration can restore order to the TPS program and uphold the rule of law, or if activist lawyers will succeed in keeping thousands of migrants in the country against the government’s wishes.