Today the Supreme Court hears a case that will decide the fate of over 350,000 people currently living legally in the United States — and impact thousands more who are still in limbo.
So what is Temporary Protected Status and what is the case about? NEW 🧵 on the issue.
Temporary Protected Status was created to deal with the fact that sometimes, due to an outbreak of war, political crisis, or natural disaster, deportation becomes inhumane.
Without a law to address this, presidents responded on an ad hoc basis using inherent executive authority.
Before TPS, Presidents used a thing called "extended voluntary departure" to address these crisis. For example:
- Ford gave EVD to Lebanese in 1976 due to civil war
- Carter gave EVD to Ugandans in 1978 due to civil war
- Reagan gave EVD to Poles in 1981 due to Soviet crackdowns
But Extended Voluntary Departure had a big problem; the process for granting or extending it was completely opaque and political. Administrations would grant, extend, or terminate it for reasons known only to them.
To address this, Congress decided to create TPS.
Temporary Protected Status, created in 1990, established a new, standardized process for determining when a sudden crisis meant it was no longer safe or humane to deport people to their home countries.
Unlike EVD, the goal was a system guided by objective facts, not politics.
TPS can ONLY be granted when the DHS Secretary* determines there is a natural disaster, armed conflict, or "extraordinary and temporary conditions" preventing safe return.
*the law says Attorney General but ignore that, the 2003 Homeland Security Act gave it to the DHS Secretary
Congress also intended that TPS termination would be insulated from politics and be based on objective facts.
TPS can ONLY be terminated once DHS conducts a factual review of "conditions in the foreign state" and finds that the situation has improved. If no, it MUST be extended.
For 35 years, this is how TPS operated. Once it was granted, the government would conduct an investigation in the months before TPS was set to expire, and would decide if conditions had improved such that it was safe to return.
If no, it was extended. If yes, it was terminated.
Enter Trump 2.0. Since taking office, 13 countries have come up for termination of their TPS. But unlike every administration in the past, there has been no factual investigation of whether conditions have improved.
Here is the full extent of the "consultation" DHS did on Haiti.
The Trump administration has been clear that they don't like TPS and the fact that people granted the status get to live legally and work legally in the United States. So they have terminated EVERY SINGLE designation to come up for an extension so far, often on laughable grounds.
As a result, people have sued. And the government's response in each case has been the same: this lawsuit is barred because Congress in 1990 *also* said that no court can review any "determination ... with respect to the designation, or termination" of TPS.
While on its face, this may seem to be an insurmountable obstacle, plaintiffs have sued on a theory that they are not challenging the determination itself, but rather on the process to reach it; the lack of factual review and the biased, pre-textual decision-making.
Today the Supreme Court will be debating three questions;
- Whether the case can be heard in the first place
- Whether the failure to follow the procedures set out in the law make the termination unlawful
- Whether a court correctly held that the decision was motivated by racism
At stake in these direct cases are 350,000 Haitians and a few thousand Syrian nationals who are currently living and working lawfully with TPS.
But there are around 900,000 others whose TPS has either already been terminated or is at risk of being terminated by Trump.
6 out of 7 Haitians who have TPS got it under Biden, following Secretary Mayorkas' decision to re-designate TPS after the Haitian president was assassinated in 2021 and the country descended into chaos.
1 in 7 got TPS after the 2010 earthquake which killed over 100,000 people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From FY 2021 through FY 2024, roughly 3.5 million people became U.S. citizens through naturalization. The idea that Biden is somehow personally responsible if any of them later went on to commit crimes is beyond stupid; it's willfully ignorant and deliberately inflammatory.
Neither @nypost or @DHSgov has EVER blamed Trump for any crimes committed by an immigrant who entered the country or got status under Trump. Not once.
It's because they KNOW it's not a good faith argument.
Wait, sorry, so now the Trump admin is attempting to strip green cards from people just because of who their families are?! And people are cheering this on?
People with DACA came here as children. Every one of them has been here for a minimum 19 years. They grew up here. They went to school here. Many speak English with no accent. They are working legally, paying taxes, doing everything right.
Because that's not something a President can do. Only Congress can provide a path to permanent legal status for most DACA recipients. And Congress has sat on its ass for years, even though huge majorities of the American public supports the DREAM Act.
In 2018, the Supreme Court said DACA might be legal if it only protected against deportation, not provided work permits. The 5th Circuit, the most conservative in the country, upheld that version and limited their ruling only to Texas (the plaintiff).
Here I was thinking that what mattered was every single judge who has ruled on the issue, 125+ years of accepted understanding of the 14th, and centuries of common law on the contours of jus soli. But if you have SEVEN law professors, man, WOW.
Less sarcastically, this article has a GLARING flaw: dual citizenship. Many children of U.S. citizens acquire foreign citizenship at birth under jus sanguinis and so would not have an "exclusive" allegiance to the US under this theory. That can't be right.
If "exclusive allegiance" is required, then how could that cover Wong Kim Ark himself, who was a dual national?
Hamburger's answer is that U.S. law at the time did not recognize dual nationality. That's a bizarre answer that raises more questions than it answers.
The overwhelming majority of Americans (polls show over 80%) oppose the deportation of people like this woman. In every previous administration, including Trump's first, this woman would not have been a priority for enforcement.
You can't get a fiancé visa from inside the country, and thanks to failed laws Congress passed 30 years ago, getting a green card through her husband could be either near-impossible or could take 3-5 years minimum. It's not as simple as most people think.
In 1996, Congress said that people wanting to get a green card through a US citizen spouse, who had originally entered illegally, had to leave the US and get a visa, which triggers a 10-year ban on reentry.
A truly AWFUL situation; last week Border Patrol dropped a “nearly blind” Burmese refugee off in front of a random donut shop in Buffalo, five miles from his house.
He was just found dead, having never made it home.
It is truly enraging. To take someone so vulnerable and to drop them off so far from their home in the middle of winter without notifying family? It was a recipe for disaster. And I doubt anyone will be held accountable.