Latest news with #GlobalRefuge
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Latest: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of birthright citizenship unclear
The court on Friday issued decisions on the final six cases that were left on its docket for the summer, including emergency appeals relating to Trump's agenda. A divided Supreme Court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump 's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The court sided with Maryland parents with religious objections to school book material, preserved a key part of an Obamacare coverage requirement, upheld a law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online and preserved a fee subsidizing phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. Here's the latest: Trump says he will 'promptly file' to push policies after court's decision Speaking from the White House, Trump said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by district courts. Trump calls court ruling a 'monumental victory' The president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said Friday that the decision from the Supreme Court was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law. Vance praises court ruling on 'ridiculous process' of injunctions 'Under our system, everyone has to follow the law—including judges!' the vice president wrote on the social platform X. Nationwide injunctions have become a key brake on Trump's efforts to dramatically reshape the government, frustrating him and his allies. Options remain 'for individuals to obtain relief from the courts,' legal group says Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of the nonprofit Democracy Forward, called the court's birthright citizenship decision 'another obstacle' to the protection of constitutional rights, but added that 'a number of pathways remain for individuals to obtain relief from the courts.' Democracy Forward has led winning injunctions against the administration over pauses to federal funding. 'Lawyers in this nation will find a way or make one in the work to achieve what our Constitution mandates and our nation promises,' Perryman said in a statement. Immigrant advocates say the court has 'invited chaos, inequality' with ruling The Supreme Court ruling 'opens the door to a dangerous patchwork of rights in this country, where a child's citizenship may now depend on the judicial district in which they're born,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit group that supports refugees and migrants entering the U.S. 'This is a deeply troubling moment not only for immigrant families, but for the legal uniformity that underpins our Constitution.' 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' he said in a statement. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' Vignarajah continued. Law aimed at blo cking kids from seeing pornography online upheld The ruling came in a case over a Texas law that was challenged by an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition. The group said the law puts an unfair free speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. It agreed, though, that children under 18 shouldn't be seeing porn. Nearly half all states have passed similar age verification laws as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material. ▶ Read more about the Supreme Court's decision Vice President JD Vance hails 'huge' Supreme Court decision Vance said the justices were 'smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions.' He also shared a post from conservative commentator Sean Davis, who said the court was 'nuking universal injunctions,' which liberals have sought from district judges to slow down Trump's agenda. Birthright citizenship case ruling will cause 'chaos and confusion,' group says Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, said the decision 'opens the door to discrimination, statelessness, and a fundamental erosion of rights for those born on American soil.' 'By lifting the injunction on this cruel and unconstitutional executive order, there will be chaos and confusion for families across the country as citizenship may depend on the state you were born in,' Rodríguez said in a statement. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling. The conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. New York AG calls Supreme Court ruling a profound setback The ruling, which said individual judges don't have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, left unclear the fate of Trump's birthright citizenship order, which would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. 'While I am confident that our case defending birthright citizenship will ultimately prevail, my heart breaks for the families whose lives may be upended by the uncertainty of this decision,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. 'The lives of thousands of Americans will be upended' Common Cause President and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said the Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of injunctions issued by federal judges leaves thousands of people vulnerable. 'The lives of thousands of Americans will be upended, and many will be wrongfully deported. The ruling undermines the ability of the federal courts to protect the Constitution from a president with no respect for the rule of law and a dislike for people who don't look like him,' Solomón said in a statement. Solomón predicted the Trump administration would use the ruling to 'illegally deport citizens in violation of the 14th Amendment.' 'Ultimately, the courts will rule against this blatantly unconstitutional act by the president. But the ruling today prevents lower courts from stopping unconstitutional acts nationwide before they do serious harm,' she said. Many justices have raised concerns about nationwide injunctions In the past, at least five of the Supreme Court's conservative justices have raised concerns about the orders, but it hasn't just been conservatives. Speaking at the Northwestern University School of Law in 2022, Kagan warned of 'forum shopping,' when litigants file suit in courts they hope will be receptive to them. 'In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas,' she said. 'It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.' Trump plans news conference to celebrate Supreme Court ruling The president posted on his Truth Social media network that the ruling was a 'GIANT WIN.' 'Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,' Trump said in the post. He announced he plans to have a news conference at 11:30 a.m. at the White House. Court sides w ith Maryland parents over LGBTQ+ storybooks The justice ruled that the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents would win in the end. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. ▶ Read more about the Supreme Court's decision Supreme Court OKs fee subsidizing phone and internet services The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The fee provides billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. The ruling crossed ideological lines, with Kagan writing for the majority in an opinion that included several conservative justices. ▶ Read more about the Supreme Court's decision Key part of Obamacare coverage requirements preserved The Supreme Court rejected a challenge from Christian employers to a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements, which affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been critical of his Democratic predecessor's law. Nationwide injunctions have become a favored judicial tool during Trump presidency A Supreme Court opinion limiting the use of nationwide injunctions takes aim at a judicial maneuver that has soared in popularity during the first several months of Trump's second term. A Congressional Research Service report identified 25 cases between Jan. 20 and April 29 in which a district court judge issued a nationwide injunction. Those include cases on topics ranging from federal funding to diversity, equity and inclusion considerations to birthright citizenship, the subject at issue in Friday's Supreme Court opinion restricting their use. That number is in contrast to 28 nationwide injunction cases that CRS identified from former President Joe Biden's administration and 86 from Trump's first term. The report cautions that it's not possible to provide a full count since nationwide injunction is not a legal term with a precise meaning. Sotomayor accuses the Trump administration of 'gamesmanship' in dissent She wrote that Trump's birthright citizenship executive order has been deemed 'patently unconstitutional' by every court that examined it. So, instead of trying to argue that the executive order is likely constitutional, the administration 'asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,' she wrote. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her in her dissenting opinion. Attorney general applauds limits on nationwide injunctions 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on the social platform X shortly after the ruling came down. Bondi said the Justice Department 'will continue to zealously defend' Trump's 'policies and his authority to implement them.' Universal injunctions have been a source of intense frustration for the Trump administration amid a barrage of legal challenges to his priorities around immigration and other matters. Nationwide injunctions limited, but fate of birthright citizenship order unclear The outcome was a victory for Trump, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is reading her dissenting opinion from the bench, a sign of her clear disagreement with the majority's opinion. The other big cases left on the docket The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ+ storybooks in public schools, but other decisions appear less obvious. The judges will also weigh a Texas age-verification law for online pornography and a map of Louisiana congressional districts, now in its second trip to the nation's highest court. The justices will take the bench at 10 a.m. Once they're seated, they'll get right to the opinions. The opinions are announced in reverse order of seniority so that the junior justices go first. The birthright citizenship case will likely be announced last by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Boston Globe
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump administration tells immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela they have to leave
DHS said that the letters informed people that both their temporary legal status and their work permit was revoked 'effective immediately.' It encouraged any person living illegally in the U.S. to leave using a mobile application called CBP Home and said that individuals will receive travel assistance and $1,000 upon arrival at their home country. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The department did not provide details on how the U.S. government will find or contact the people once they leave or how they will receive the money. Advertisement Trump promised during his presidential campaign to end what he called the 'broad abuse' of humanitarian parole, a long-standing legal tool presidents have used to allow people from countries where there's war or political instability to enter and temporarily live in the U.S. Trump promised to deport millions of people who are in the U.S. illegally, and as president he has been also ending legal pathways created for immigrants to come to the U.S. and to stay and work. Advertisement His decision Immigration advocates expressed concern over the Trump administration decision to send the notices to more than a half million individuals. It 'is a deeply destabilizing decision,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president of Global Refuge, a nonprofit organization that supports refugees and migrants entering the U.S. 'These are people that played by the rules... they passed security screenings, paid for their own travel, obtained work authorization, and began rebuilding their lives.' Zamora, a 34-year-old Cuban mother who arrived under the sponsorship of an American citizen in September 2023, said she fears deportation. However, for now, she has no plans to leave the country. 'I am afraid of being detained while my son is at school,' said Zamora, who asked to be identified only by her last name out of fear of being deported. 'I'm afraid to return to Cuba, the situation is very difficult there.' Zamora said she has sought other ways to remain in the U.S. legally through the Cuban Adjustment Act, a law that allows Cubans who have arrived legally to the U.S. and meet certain requirements to apply to get a green card. Although her process has not been approved yet, she is hopeful it may allow her to remain legally in the U.S. In the meantime, she said that she will stop working at a clinic if needed. 'I'm going to wait quietly without getting into trouble,' the Cuban said. Advertisement
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge orders Trump administration to facilitate return of second deported man
A federal judge in Maryland ordered the return of a second man deported by the Trump administration to a Salvadoran prison, saying his removal violated a court settlement she approved in 2019. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, an appointee of President Trump, ordered the return of a Venezuelan man referred to in court documents only as Cristian, while blocking the administration from removing anyone else protected by the settlement. Gallagher said that 20-year-old Cristian was among those who entered the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor, protected from removal while they were permitted to seek asylum. 'Defendants are hereby ORDERED to facilitate Class Member Cristian's return to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits,' she wrote in the Wednesday order. The decision comes after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man and Salvadoran national who had also been protected from deportation to El Salvador. The Justice Department has been fighting that order as well as a Supreme Court decision upholding it that ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return. That has prompted Xinis to order depositions and written questions between the parties to determine whether to hold any Trump officials in contempt. The Trump administration has argued facilitating Abrego Garcia's return requires only sending a plane if the Salvadoran government agrees to release him. President Nayib Bukele has said he will not do so. Gallagher's order appears to nod to that struggle, writing that 'facilitation includes, but is not limited to, a good faith request by Defendants to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States.' For immigration advocates, the second case is a sign there could be more men among those sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison whose removal was in defiance of various protections. 'The second deportee that's being required to be returned, but I think that's incredibly important, because it is clear to those closely following the Garcia case that it doesn't appear to be isolated,' Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, told The Hill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
11-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
DHS ends protections from deportation for Afghanistan, Cameroon
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has stripped protections from deportation for Afghans and Cameroonians in the U.S., calling into question the ability of some Afghan evacuees to remain in America. Citizens of both countries have been protected by Temporary Protected Status (TPS) since 2022, protecting anyone already in the U.S. from being sent back to either country due to dangerous conditions and instability. While courts have blocked similar efforts by Noem for other countries, the move nevertheless creates uncertainty for those set to lose the status. 'The secretary determined that Afghanistan no longer continues to meet the statutory requirements for its T.P.S. designation and so she terminated T.P.S. for Afghanistan,' said Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the agency. The statement said Noem had done so on March 21, the statutory deadline for reviewing whether to continue protections but in place under the Biden administration. Noem did so for Cameroon on April 7, as that country's protections are set to expire in June. The New York Times first reported the decision. The move was swiftly condemned by Afghan advocates, who pointed to deteriorating conditions in the country that have accelerated since the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, including widespread food insecurity. 'TPS exists for a reason: to protect people whose return to their country would place them in grave danger. Afghanistan today is still reeling from Taliban rule, economic collapse, and humanitarian disaster. Nothing about that reality has changed,' Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president of Global Refuge, a refugee resettlement agency, said in a statement. 'Terminating protections for Afghans is a morally indefensible betrayal of allies who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us to advance American interests throughout our country's longest war.' Many of the roughly 80,000 Afghans who came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul have adjusted their status, either securing asylum or a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) given to those who assisted U.S. military efforts there. But many are still protected under TPS. The Biden administration last renewed TPS for Afghanistan in September 2023, with protectees set to lose the status in May of this year. DHS previously estimated that approximately 14,600 Afghans would be eligible under the latest redesignation of TPS. 'Extraordinary and temporary conditions, including lack of access to food, clean water, and healthcare, as well as destroyed infrastructure, internal displacement, and economic instability continue to prevent Afghan nationals from returning to their homeland in safety,' the Biden administration determined at the time. A federal judge last week temporarily blocked Noem's rescission of TPS for Venezuelans, determining that the decision was 'motivated at least in part by animus' and that her decision was 'entirely lacking in evidentiary support.' However, while Noem sought to vacate protections for Venezuelans, the latest moves would let existing protections expire. The decision could still face challenges on the grounds that it is unsafe to return Afghan nationals to the country. DHS noted that 'if the Secretary determines that the country no longer meets the statutory conditions for designation, she must terminate the designation.' The agency said it will explain its rationale for doing so in a forthcoming notice on the federal register.
The Independent
18-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Takeaways from AP's reporting on U.S.-allied Afghan refugees struggling for basic support
Rahmani worked for a U.S.-backed organization in Kabul, which put him at risk of Taliban retribution. Now, the father of two is among thousands of newly arrived refugees who lost financial assistance when the Trump administration cut off funding for the federal refugee program in January. He moved here in November through the vetted form of legal migration. To fast-track self-sufficiency, it provides refugees with wraparound services for three months — help with housing, food and job placement — while other federal grants support their first five years. Instead, Rahmani's relocation services were largely halted after only two months, when the Trump administration upended the refugee program. He otherwise would have qualified for extended rental assistance for up to six months. He has spent weeks looking for work, with no luck. Unable to pay his rent, his anxiety mounts by the day. Here's a look at key elements of the plight he and his family face. Resettlement agencies are reeling from disruption of funding Rahmani is a client of Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area, a local faith-based resettlement agency that is waiting on $3.7 million in federal funding for work it has already provided. LSSNCA has struggled to make payroll, and its support services have fallen like dominoes after it was forced to lay off 75 people and furlough seven others. Two-thirds of its clients are Afghan allies, who were offered visas and protection in the United States after the Taliban returned to power. These Afghans worked alongside U.S. troops or, like Rahmani, were employed by U.S.-backed organizations. Rahmani is identified using only one of his names because he still fears for his family's safety. The risk of widespread evictions By early March, at least 42 households under LSSNCA's care had received eviction notices, putting nearly 170 people in Virginia and Maryland on the edge of homelessness, with more — like Rahmani's family — at risk. The staff has been fundraising and negotiating with landlords to stave off evictions. The organization raised $500,000 in six weeks, but that doesn't fill the gap left by frozen government funds. Global Refuge is the parent organization of LSSNCA and has long served as one of 10 national agencies partnering with the federal government to resettle refugees. It has received no federal reimbursements for work done since Inauguration Day and has laid off hundreds of staff. Nearly 6,000 refugees in its care were within 90 days of arrival, the initial aid window, when it received a stop-work order from the Trump administration. Across resettlement agencies nationwide, support for at least 30,000 recent arrivals was affected. At LSSNCA, 369 people were within their first 90 days in the U.S., and another 850 clients were eligible for longer-term services. 'We're seeing the de facto wholesale destruction of a longstanding bipartisan program that saved millions of lives,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. Refugees fled instability, only to find more of it in the U.S. LSSNCA's capacity has been stretched thin before. The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 led to a surge of Afghans being resettled in the U.S. LSSNCA went from serving 500 people a year to 500 people a month. They staffed up to deal with the influx of Afghans, with case managers working long hours. The quality of their work suffered: Federal reimbursements were often delayed, and they struggled to provide services. The difference then was they knew the federal government backed their work. Marjila Badakhsh came to the U.S. in December of 2021. A journalist who worked for a U.S.-funded Afghan media organization, she was evacuated from Kabul and resettled in Virginia. Once a LSSNCA client, she was later hired at the organization, only to be laid off in January when the agency received its stop-work order. 'After three years, with one policy I'm thinking that I'm back to the day that I came to the United States for the first time, and I should start again,' she said. She stays busy applying to jobs in Virginia and California, where her brother — who worked as an interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan — was recently resettled. But her dreams of one day welcoming their parents and sister to the U.S. are on hold after the suspension of the U.S. refugee program. The courts are still weighing in Lawsuits against the Trump administration have been filed over its immigration policies, with one judge ruling in favor of three faith-based resettlement agencies. In a recent court filing, administration lawyers argued that initial refugee benefits are 'not required by law.' They indicated it would take months to comply with a court order to restart the program. This week, Global Refuge received some federal reimbursements for its work during the Biden administration. Those funds came through the Department of Health and Human Services. Global Refuge has not received federal payments for work done since late January, and it has not received reimbursements for the 90-day aid offered through the State Department, which did not respond to a request for comment. ___ ___ Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
