ReportWire

Tag: stay

  • Appeals court rules Trump administration can end legal protections for more than 400,000 migrants

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can end legal protections for around 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest twist in a legal fight over Biden-era policies that created new and expanded pathways for people to live in the United States, generally for two years with work authorization. The Trump administration announced in March it was ending the humanitarian parole protections.“We recognize the risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court’s order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month — a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries,” the judges wrote. “But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay.”In a two-page ruling, the court lifted a stay issued by a district court and is allowing the administration to end humanitarian parole for those groups while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling Friday is a victory for the Trump administration, but doesn’t change anything on the ground.Esther Sung, the legal director of Justice Action Center, a co-counsel in the case, said the ruling “hurts everyone.”“People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain,” Sung said. “While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues.”A district court issued a stay in April halting the administration’s decision, but the Supreme Court lifted the lower court order at the end of May with little explanation.The Trump administration had argued the appeals court should follow the Supreme Court and reverse the district court ruling.The protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference, the Justice Department said in a court filing.Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that ending parole on a case-by-case basis would be a “gargantuan task” that would slow the government’s efforts to press for the removal of the migrants.“The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter,” lawyers for the government wrote in their brief.Plaintiffs, including people who benefited from the legal protections, urged the appeals court to endorse the district court ruling, which found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not categorically end protections for these groups, but instead had to evaluate each case individually. They also cited the district court’s finding that Noem ignored the humanitarian concerns that led to the legal protections in the first place.“The district court applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Secretary Noem’s action inflicted irreparable injury on the class members (among others) and that the public interest and balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of preliminary relief,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a brief.Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people. Since taking office, he has sought to dismantle Biden administration policies that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S.The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said in court papers, calling it “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”

    BOSTON —

    A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can end legal protections for around 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest twist in a legal fight over Biden-era policies that created new and expanded pathways for people to live in the United States, generally for two years with work authorization. The Trump administration announced in March it was ending the humanitarian parole protections.

    “We recognize the risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court’s order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month — a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries,” the judges wrote. “But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay.”

    In a two-page ruling, the court lifted a stay issued by a district court and is allowing the administration to end humanitarian parole for those groups while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling Friday is a victory for the Trump administration, but doesn’t change anything on the ground.

    Esther Sung, the legal director of Justice Action Center, a co-counsel in the case, said the ruling “hurts everyone.”

    “People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain,” Sung said. “While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues.”

    A district court issued a stay in April halting the administration’s decision, but the Supreme Court lifted the lower court order at the end of May with little explanation.

    The Trump administration had argued the appeals court should follow the Supreme Court and reverse the district court ruling.

    The protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference, the Justice Department said in a court filing.

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that ending parole on a case-by-case basis would be a “gargantuan task” that would slow the government’s efforts to press for the removal of the migrants.

    “The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter,” lawyers for the government wrote in their brief.

    Plaintiffs, including people who benefited from the legal protections, urged the appeals court to endorse the district court ruling, which found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not categorically end protections for these groups, but instead had to evaluate each case individually. They also cited the district court’s finding that Noem ignored the humanitarian concerns that led to the legal protections in the first place.

    “The district court applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Secretary Noem’s action inflicted irreparable injury on the class members (among others) and that the public interest and balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of preliminary relief,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a brief.

    Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people. Since taking office, he has sought to dismantle Biden administration policies that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S.

    The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said in court papers, calling it “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court order puts Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants who cross illegally back on hold

    Court order puts Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants who cross illegally back on hold

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court late Tuesday issued an order that again prevents Texas from arresting migrants suspected of entering the U.S. illegally, hours after the Supreme Court allowed the strict new immigration law to take effect.The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes weeks after a panel on the same court cleared the way for Texas to enforce the law by putting a pause on a lower judge’s injunction.But by a 2-1 order, a panel of the appeals court lifted that pause ahead of arguments before the court on Wednesday.Texas authorities had not announced any arrests made under the law.Earlier Tuesday a divided Supreme Court had allowed Texas to begin enforcing a law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally as the legal battle over the measure played out.The conservative majority order rejected an emergency application from the Biden administration, which says the law is a clear violation of federal authority that would cause chaos in immigration law.Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had praised the order clearing the way for the law that allows any police officer in Texas to arrest migrants for illegal entry and authorizes judges to order them to leave the U.S.The high court didn’t address whether the law is constitutional. The measure was sent to the appellate court, which made the late Tuesday ruling.It was also unclear where any migrants ordered to leave might go if the law is ultimately allowed. It calls for them to be sent to ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, even if they are not Mexican citizens.But Mexico’s government said Tuesday it would not “under any circumstances” accept the return of any migrants to its territory from the state of Texas. Mexico is not required to accept deportations of anyone except Mexican citizens.The Department of Homeland Security said the federal government would also continue the court challenge to the law that will “further complicate” the job of its “already strained” workforce. The agency won’t assist in any efforts to enforce the law known as Senate Bill 4.The Supreme Court’s majority did not write a detailed opinion in the case, as is typical in emergency appeals. But the decision to let the law go into effect drew dissents from liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.“The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent joined by Jackson.The law is considered by opponents to be the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. Critics have also said the Texas law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the law “harmful and unconstitutional” and said it would burden law enforcement while creating confusion. She called on congressional Republicans to settle the issue with a federal border security bill.Texas, for its part, has argued it has a right to take action over what authorities have called an ongoing crisis at the southern border. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice said in a statement it is “prepared to handle any influx” in the state’s detainee population associated with the state law.Sheriffs’ offices have been preparing for the implementation of Senate Bill 4 since the state’s legislative session last year, said Skylor Hearn, executive director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas.The law allows police in counties bordering Mexico to make arrests if they see someone crossing illegally, he said. It could also be enforced elsewhere in Texas if someone is arrested on suspicion of another violation and a fingerprint taken during jail booking links them to a suspected re-entry violation. It likely would not come into play during a routine traffic stop, he said.“I don’t think you will see anything ultimately different,” Hearn said.Arrests for illegal crossings along the southern border hit record highs in December but fell by half in January, a shift attributed to seasonal declines and heightened enforcement. The federal government has not yet released numbers for February.Some Texas officials sounded a cautious note.“A lot of the local police chiefs here, we don’t believe it will survive a constitutional challenge. … We have no training whatsoever to determine whether an individual is here in this country, legally,” said Sheriff Eddie Guerra of Hidalgo County. He serves as president of the Southwestern Border Sheriffs’ Coalition representing 31 border counties from Texas to California.Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested her vote in favor of Texas stemmed from the technicalities of the appeals process rather than agreement with the state on the substance of the law.“So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter — or not enter — an administrative stay. I would not get into the business. When entered, an administrative stay is supposed to be a short-lived prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal,” she wrote in a concurring opinion joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.The battle over the Texas immigration law is one of multiple legal disputes between Texas officials and the Biden administration over how far the state can go to patrol the Texas-Mexico border and prevent illegal border crossings.Several Republican governors have backed Gov. Abbott’s efforts, saying the federal government is not doing enough to enforce existing immigration laws.The Supreme Court in 2012 struck down key parts of an Arizona law that would have allowed police to arrest people for federal immigration violations, often referred to by opponents as the “show me your papers” bill. The divided high court found then that the impasse in Washington over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.___Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Rebecca Santana in Washington, Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, Acacia Coronado in Austin, Texas, and Chris Sherman in Mexico City contributed to this report.

    A federal appeals court late Tuesday issued an order that again prevents Texas from arresting migrants suspected of entering the U.S. illegally, hours after the Supreme Court allowed the strict new immigration law to take effect.

    The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes weeks after a panel on the same court cleared the way for Texas to enforce the law by putting a pause on a lower judge’s injunction.

    But by a 2-1 order, a panel of the appeals court lifted that pause ahead of arguments before the court on Wednesday.

    Texas authorities had not announced any arrests made under the law.

    Earlier Tuesday a divided Supreme Court had allowed Texas to begin enforcing a law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally as the legal battle over the measure played out.

    The conservative majority order rejected an emergency application from the Biden administration, which says the law is a clear violation of federal authority that would cause chaos in immigration law.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had praised the order clearing the way for the law that allows any police officer in Texas to arrest migrants for illegal entry and authorizes judges to order them to leave the U.S.

    The high court didn’t address whether the law is constitutional. The measure was sent to the appellate court, which made the late Tuesday ruling.

    It was also unclear where any migrants ordered to leave might go if the law is ultimately allowed. It calls for them to be sent to ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, even if they are not Mexican citizens.

    But Mexico’s government said Tuesday it would not “under any circumstances” accept the return of any migrants to its territory from the state of Texas. Mexico is not required to accept deportations of anyone except Mexican citizens.

    The Department of Homeland Security said the federal government would also continue the court challenge to the law that will “further complicate” the job of its “already strained” workforce. The agency won’t assist in any efforts to enforce the law known as Senate Bill 4.

    The Supreme Court’s majority did not write a detailed opinion in the case, as is typical in emergency appeals. But the decision to let the law go into effect drew dissents from liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

    “The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent joined by Jackson.

    The law is considered by opponents to be the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. Critics have also said the Texas law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling.

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the law “harmful and unconstitutional” and said it would burden law enforcement while creating confusion. She called on congressional Republicans to settle the issue with a federal border security bill.

    Texas, for its part, has argued it has a right to take action over what authorities have called an ongoing crisis at the southern border. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice said in a statement it is “prepared to handle any influx” in the state’s detainee population associated with the state law.

    Sheriffs’ offices have been preparing for the implementation of Senate Bill 4 since the state’s legislative session last year, said Skylor Hearn, executive director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas.

    The law allows police in counties bordering Mexico to make arrests if they see someone crossing illegally, he said. It could also be enforced elsewhere in Texas if someone is arrested on suspicion of another violation and a fingerprint taken during jail booking links them to a suspected re-entry violation. It likely would not come into play during a routine traffic stop, he said.

    “I don’t think you will see anything ultimately different,” Hearn said.

    Arrests for illegal crossings along the southern border hit record highs in December but fell by half in January, a shift attributed to seasonal declines and heightened enforcement. The federal government has not yet released numbers for February.

    Some Texas officials sounded a cautious note.

    “A lot of the local police chiefs here, we don’t believe it will survive a constitutional challenge. … We have no training whatsoever to determine whether an individual is here in this country, legally,” said Sheriff Eddie Guerra of Hidalgo County. He serves as president of the Southwestern Border Sheriffs’ Coalition representing 31 border counties from Texas to California.

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested her vote in favor of Texas stemmed from the technicalities of the appeals process rather than agreement with the state on the substance of the law.

    “So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter — or not enter — an administrative stay. I would not get into the business. When entered, an administrative stay is supposed to be a short-lived prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal,” she wrote in a concurring opinion joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    The battle over the Texas immigration law is one of multiple legal disputes between Texas officials and the Biden administration over how far the state can go to patrol the Texas-Mexico border and prevent illegal border crossings.

    Several Republican governors have backed Gov. Abbott’s efforts, saying the federal government is not doing enough to enforce existing immigration laws.

    The Supreme Court in 2012 struck down key parts of an Arizona law that would have allowed police to arrest people for federal immigration violations, often referred to by opponents as the “show me your papers” bill. The divided high court found then that the impasse in Washington over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Rebecca Santana in Washington, Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, Acacia Coronado in Austin, Texas, and Chris Sherman in Mexico City contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 7 days sober

    7 days sober

    [ad_1]

    I know it’s not really a big feat but I’ve not gone a full week without drinking in about 2 months. I’m shooting to stay sober all of January, and maybe February too. So far, so good. Will see how it goes but I kinda wanted to tell someone because I’m proud of myself

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Austin Pets Alive! | Capturing Memories and Saving Lives

    Austin Pets Alive! | Capturing Memories and Saving Lives

    [ad_1]

    May 20, 2023

    It’s said a picture is worth a thousand words. But a photo also has the ability to freeze time and capture a priceless memory to hold forever. This May, APA! is partnering with the nationally acclaimed Jennifer Lindberg Studio to provide a beautiful photo of your pet that will also help support the long stay dogs of APA!.

    All participants will receive a complimentary photo session by a talented portrait artist and a gift certificate to apply toward their portrait purchase, a total value of $850. Each participant will have one of their portraits published in a special coffee table book dedicated to the long stay dogs of APA!. A non-refundable reservation fee of $100 goes to APA! when the session is booked. More information and how to book your session can be found here.

    This year’s goal is to raise $15,000 all in the name of the long stay dogs of APA!. Long-time volunteer, Jess Borda, reflects that these “incredibly special dogs need a little extra care — extra patience time or training to get ready for adoption” which is why their stay at the shelter may be 60+ days. “The fact that Jennifer is helping to showcase these special creatures means the world.”

    Supporting nonprofits like this is rooted in Lindberg’s personal philosophy. She began her career with the goal of making a difference in the world by using her talents to help those in need. Lindberg says the organizations their fundraisers benefit are selected based on referrals from the clients who have used her services. “I learned about all of these nonprofits through our clients. We invite our clients to share their favorite nonprofits… (the ones) that positively impact their lives.”

    We’re grateful that APA! has impacted so many human lives and equally grateful that businesses like Jennifer Lindberg Studio created special opportunities to support APA!, making a positive impact on the lives of pets while they await their adoptive homes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link