Trump scores Supreme Court win on Venezuelan deportations as judge blasts ‘unconstitutional animus’

The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to end deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants. The decision temporarily lifts a federal judge’s order that had blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections established during the Biden administration. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted her dissent from the order, which blocks the lower court ruling pending further litigation in the case. 

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued in a May 1 application that the TPS program involves discretionary decisions regarding immigration policy that should remain under the control of the Executive Branch. Sauer contended that the district judge had inappropriately taken control of the nation’s immigration policy away from the Executive Branch by imposing the judge’s own foreign policy views instead.

According to MSNBC, the case originated when U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled against the administration, describing Secretary Noem’s move to end Venezuelan TPS protections as “unprecedented” and apparently “predicated on negative stereotypes.” In his ruling, Chen stated that Noem’s actions would inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of people whose lives, families, and livelihoods would be severely disrupted. He added that terminating TPS would cost the United States billions in economic activity and harm public health and safety in communities throughout the country.

Lower court found likely evidence of discrimination in TPS termination

In his initial ruling, Judge Chen determined that the plaintiffs would likely succeed in demonstrating that Noem’s actions were illegal and “motivated by unconstitutional animus.” He also concluded that the government had failed to show any significant harm would result from continuing TPS protections for Venezuelan beneficiaries. This finding was a central part of his decision to block the termination of the program.

The Trump administration strongly disputed this characterization in their Supreme Court application. Solicitor General Sauer argued that Chen relied on out-of-context evidence that did not reasonably suggest racial animus. He described Chen’s theory as spurious, suggesting it could be applied to virtually any immigration-related initiative of the Trump administration while ignoring the Secretary’s reasoned policy determination justifying the decisions.

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to lift Chen’s order, the administration applied to the Supreme Court for emergency relief. This represents one of several emergency appeals by the Trump administration in its second term seeking to reverse lower court orders blocking what judges have found to be potentially illegal implementations of the president’s agenda. Lawyers representing TPS beneficiaries opposed the government’s emergency request, arguing that there was no actual emergency since litigation was still proceeding in lower courts and the government could not immediately implement its policy regardless of the ruling.

Immigration law scholars submitted an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the government’s claim of unreviewable executive discretion contradicts the history of the TPS statute, which they noted was created specifically in response to previous discretionary practices. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is separate from recent litigation over Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, an issue on which the Supreme Court ruled against the administration last Friday, requiring more notice for individuals to challenge their removal under that act.