Latest news with #Talwani
Reuters
a day ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US appeals court weighs Trump move to end of thousands of migrants' status
July 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to rule that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted lawfully when she revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign told a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower-court judge had wrongly concluded Noem lacked the discretion to categorically end the immigration "parole" granted to approximately 430,000 migrants by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, halted the agency's action on April 14, saying Noem could only revoke previously granted parole and work authorizations for migrants on a case-by-case basis. Ensign argued that was wrong, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's May 30 decision to put Talwani's ruling in favor of a class of migrants on hold pending further appeals, which allowed the parole terminations to take effect. "As the Supreme Court has already implicitly recognized by a lopsided vote, the government is likely to prevail on appeal, either in this court or, if necessary, in the Supreme Court," he said. "This court should reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court." The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. Ensign said Noem was legally entitled to categorically end those parole programs, saying she "profoundly disagrees" with the Biden administration's view that they were needed to alleviate pressures at the border and improve the overall immigration system. All three judges on the 1st Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. In May, before the Supreme Court acted, the panel declined to halt Talwani's order, saying Noem had not made a strong showing that her categorical termination of early grants of parole would be upheld on appeal. While liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented in a lengthy opinion, the majority on the nine-member Supreme Court provided no reasoning for why it was staying Talwani's decision. U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta during Tuesday's argument said that placed him and his 1st Circuit colleagues in an "unusual situation" where they are asked to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on how to proceed and were given only the "bottom line." But he told Justin Cox, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing the class action before Talwani, that the justices' order may indicate they "felt that you're at the short end of the stick on the likelihood of success on the merits." Cox said the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order was a reason not to defer to it, saying the 1st Circuit "would be speculating if it sought to assign a particular meaning to it." U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí predicted that even if the 1st Circuit upheld Talwani's decision, the Homeland Security Department could seek to again terminate the migrants' parole status through a new agency action. But Cox said a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would still be "quite valuable" regardless. "At a minimum, it would let our clients and the class members have the dignity of leaving on their own terms, as opposed to being subjected to the kinds of removal and detention processes that are happening right now," he said. The case is Doe v. Noem, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1384. For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the Law Office of Justin B Cox For the United States: Drew Ensign of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants US appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants' status US judge to block Trump from revoking thousands of migrants' legal status
Reuters
a day ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US appeals court weighs Trump's authority to revoke legal status for thousands of migrants
July 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to rule that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted lawfully when she revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign told a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower-court judge had wrongly concluded Noem lacked the discretion to categorically end the immigration "parole" granted to approximately 430,000 migrants by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, halted the agency's action on April 14, saying Noem could only revoke previously granted parole and work authorizations for migrants on a case-by-case basis. Ensign argued that was wrong, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's May 30 decision to put Talwani's ruling in favor of a class of migrants on hold pending further appeals, which allowed the parole terminations to take effect. "As the Supreme Court has already implicitly recognized by a lopsided vote, the government is likely to prevail on appeal, either in this court or, if necessary, in the Supreme Court," he said. "This court should reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court." The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. Ensign said Noem was legally entitled to categorically end those parole programs, saying she "profoundly disagrees" with the Biden administration's view that they were needed to alleviate pressures at the border and improve the overall immigration system. All three judges on the 1st Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. In May, before the Supreme Court acted, the panel declined to halt Talwani's order, saying Noem had not made a strong showing that her categorical termination of early grants of parole would be upheld on appeal. While liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented in a lengthy opinion, the majority on the nine-member Supreme Court provided no reasoning for why it was staying Talwani's decision. U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta during Tuesday's argument said that placed him and his 1st Circuit colleagues in an "unusual situation" where they are asked to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on how to proceed and were given only the "bottom line." But he told Justin Cox, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing the class action before Talwani, that the justices' order may indicate they "felt that you're at the short end of the stick on the likelihood of success on the merits." Cox said the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order was a reason not to defer to it, saying the 1st Circuit "would be speculating if it sought to assign a particular meaning to it." U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí predicted that even if the 1st Circuit upheld Talwani's decision, the Homeland Security Department could seek to again terminate the migrants' parole status through a new agency action. But Cox said a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would still be "quite valuable" regardless. "At a minimum, it would let our clients and the class members have the dignity of leaving on their own terms, as opposed to being subjected to the kinds of removal and detention processes that are happening right now," he said. The case is Doe v. Noem, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1384. For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the Law Office of Justin B Cox For the United States: Drew Ensign of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants US appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants' status US judge to block Trump from revoking thousands of migrants' legal status
Medscape
a day ago
- Health
- Medscape
US Judge Blocks Trump-backed Medicaid Cuts to Planned Parenthood
(Reuters) -A federal judge on Monday blocked enforcement of a provision in U.S. President Donald Trump's recently enacted tax and spending bill that would deprive Planned Parenthood and its members of Medicaid funding, saying it is likely unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston issued a preliminary injunction after finding the law likely violated the U.S. Constitution by targeting Planned Parenthood's health centers specifically for punishment for providing abortions. That provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by the Republican-led Congress denied certain tax-exempt organizations and their affiliates from receiving Medicaid funds if they continue to provide abortions. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that "the bill stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion" and urged Talwani not to let Planned Parenthood and its members "supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences." Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said the law's text and structure made clear that it was crafted to cover every member of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the parent organization, even if they were not named. That specificity likely transformed the provision at issue into an unconstitutional "bill of attainder," an act of Congress that wrongly seeks to inflict punishment without a trial, the judge said. "Plaintiffs are likely to establish that Congress singled them out with punitive intent," Talwani wrote. She said the law also violated Planned Parenthood members' equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment and burdened the right of some who do not provide abortions to associate with their parent organization in likely violation of the First Amendment. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields in a statement called the ruling "not only absurd but illogical and incorrect." The administration is already appealing an earlier ruling by Talwani in the same case. "It is orders like these that underscore the audacity of the lower courts as well as the chaos within the judicial branch," Fields said. "We look forward to ultimate victory on the issue." The judge last week had issued a partial injunction that only covered some Planned Parenthood members. Because an earlier temporary restraining order was expiring, Planned Parenthood said many health centers were forced to stop billing for Medicaid services ahead of Monday's ruling. Planned Parenthood has said the law would have "catastrophic" consequences for its nearly 600 health centers, putting nearly 200 of them in 24 states at risk of closure. "We will keep fighting this cruel law so that everyone can get birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and other critical health care, no matter their insurance," Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's president, said in a statement. (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Alistair Bell and Cynthia Osterman)
Time of India
a day ago
- Health
- Time of India
US Judge blocks Trump law cutting Medicaid; sides with Planned Parenthood, cites unplanned pregnancy spike
Representative image (Image: AP) A US federal court on Monday blocked the Donald Trump administration from enforcing a provision in a recently enacted tax and spending bill that would strip Planned Parenthood and its affiliates of Medicaid funding, ruling the measure is likely unconstitutional. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston issued the decision, expanding on an earlier order that had only protected certain affiliates. The new ruling ensures Medicaid payments continue for all Planned Parenthood clinics. 'Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,' Talwani wrote in her order, as reported by news agency AP. 'In particular, restricting Members' ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs. ' She added that the court was 'not enjoining the federal government from regulating abortion and is not directing the federal government to fund elective abortions or any healthcare service not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage.' Planned Parenthood federation of America, along with member organisations in Massachusetts and Utah, filed the lawsuit earlier this month against health and human services secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, warning that nearly 200 clinics in 24 states could close if Medicaid funding were withdrawn, potentially leaving over 1 million patients without care. 'We're suing the Trump administration over this targeted attack on Planned Parenthood health centers and the patients who rely on them for care,' said Planned Parenthood's president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a statement Monday. 'This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court. ' The provision in question, part of a tax bill that took effect on July 4, directed the federal government to withhold Medicaid payments for one year from abortion providers receiving more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in 2023. Though Planned Parenthood was not named directly, the organization said it was the clear target, with nearly 600 clinics in 48 states affected. Talwani emphasized that the court is not requiring the government to fund abortions or services not normally covered by Medicaid. Her ruling blocks the government from excluding organizations like Planned Parenthood that have shown a strong case in court. A spokesperson for the department of health and human services criticised the ruling, saying it 'undermines state flexibility and disregards longstanding concerns about accountability.' Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides healthcare coverage to millions of low-income and disabled Americans. Nearly half of Planned Parenthood's patients rely on Medicaid for their healthcare.
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's Medicaid cuts to Planned Parenthood blocked
That provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by the Republican-led Congress denied certain tax-exempt organizations and their affiliates from receiving Medicaid funds if they continue to provide abortions. More: Donald Trump's megabill could mean closure for a third of Planned Parenthood clinics The U.S. Department of Justice argued that "the bill stops federal subsidies for Big Abortion" and urged Talwani not to let Planned Parenthood and its members "supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences." Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said the law's text and structure made clear that it was crafted to cover every member of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the parent organization, even if they were not named. That specificity likely transformed the provision at issue into an unconstitutional "bill of attainder," an act of Congress that wrongly seeks to inflict punishment without a trial, the judge said. More: Supreme Court sides with South Carolina in effort to cut Planned Parenthood funding "Plaintiffs are likely to establish that Congress singled them out with punitive intent," Talwani wrote. She said the law also violated Planned Parenthood members' equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment and burdened the right of some who do not provide abortions to associate with their parent organization in likely violation of the First Amendment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The judge last week had issued a partial injunction that only covered some Planned Parenthood members. Because an earlier temporary restraining order was expiring, Planned Parenthood said many health centers were forced to stop billing for Medicaid services ahead of Monday's ruling. Planned Parenthood has said the law would have "catastrophic" consequences for its nearly 600 health centers, putting nearly 200 of them in 24 states at risk of closure. "We will keep fighting this cruel law so that everyone can get birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and other critical health care, no matter their insurance," Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's president, said in a statement.
