President Trump has moved to roll back the government programs that protect certain immigrants in the United States from deportation, prompting several court challenges amid his administration’s broader immigration crackdown.
Over the past several months, Mr. Trump has revoked the legal status afforded to some Ukrainians displaced by Russia’s invasion and Afghan citizens who helped the American war effort in their country. He has also canceled the protected status of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who fled instability and political violence back home — potentially leaving them vulnerable to deportation.
Perhaps most prominent has been Mr. Trump’s targeting of nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to stay under a program known as Temporary Protected Status. In response to the administration’s emergency application, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed the government to move forward with plans to lift those protections — at least for now.
But other cases involving immigrants with protected status are moving forward, as well, with thousands of people in limbo. Here’s what to know about the major challenges to Mr. Trump’s actions, and where things stand.
Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans: Noem v. Doe
The Supreme Court has not yet released a decision on another emergency application that could affect Venezuelan immigrants. In that case, the Trump administration has asked the court to allow it to revoke deportation protections for migrants from four troubled countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
A lower court judge issued an emergency order in April blocking the termination of legal status of many of the more than 500,000 migrants who entered the country under the program.
That case involves a different protective shield — not the Temporary Protected Status program — that allowed people from those countries to enter and remain in the United States temporarily through a legal mechanism called humanitarian parole.
That form of relief grants people temporary residence in the United States for urgent humanitarian or public interest reasons.
First filed in Massachusetts in February, the case took an expansive view of policy shifts pursued by Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary. It aimed to halt the immediate suspension of several temporary status programs, as well as Trump administration efforts to block people already granted humanitarian parole from applying for other, more permanent pathways to stay in the country.
“This lawsuit challenges the steps the Trump administration has taken to radically limit what had up to this point been a broad power granted by Congress to allow the executive to respond to migration challenges, address global humanitarian crises, and further important foreign policy objectives in a flexible and adaptive way,” the initial complaint said.
Despite the Supreme Court considering one aspect of this case, it is far from over, and could affect people from other nations. The challenge also covers Ukrainians and Afghans who arrived in the United States under Biden-era programs that have since been canceled by the Trump administration.
Afghans and Cameroonians: Trump v. CASA
Filed on May 7, the case focuses on the termination of temporary protections for people from Afghanistan and Cameroon.
It came in response to a plan set in motion by Ms. Noem in April that would end protected status for Afghans on May 20 and then for Cameroonians on June 7.
Like similar challenges, the suit argues that Congress established a clear process for ending Temporary Protected Status, and that the Department of Homeland Security cannot abruptly circumvent it.
It also describes the effort as motivated by “racial animus,” contrasting the Trump administration’s targeting of individuals from “nonwhite” countries with its efforts to remove immigration barriers for white South Africans.
After the court proposed moving quickly on an expedited timeline to get ahead of the May 20 deadline for Afghan nationals, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to slow its efforts somewhat and follow the process required by Congress, according to a filing this month.
Under that process, the department must afford anyone on Temporary Protected Status at least 60 extra days in the country without fear of immigration enforcement action, and only after publishing its intent to end their status in The Federal Register.
Haitians: Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association v. Trump
Focused more narrowly on individuals fleeing Haiti, this case highlights the grim circumstances that led to thousands of Haitians in the United States being granted Temporary Protected Status in the first place.
It cites continuing gang violence and targeted killings, disease outbreaks and “the collapse of Haiti’s health care system,” and widespread starvation and homelessness as among the many factors that have resulted in the designation, and asks a judge in New York to intervene.
A hearing to move the case forward is scheduled for next week, and lawyers for the plaintiffs had planned to ask the judge then to skip past a trial and summarily block any effort to immediately suspend protections for Haitians.
The lawyers have argued that the Supreme Court’s decision allowing the administration to lift protections for Venezuelans does not necessarily extend to their challenge, and asked the judge to keep the case moving.
Refugees from other countries: Pacito v. Trump
Though not directly related to Temporary Protected Status, the case revolves around refugees — including some from Afghanistan and a host of South and Central American countries — whose admission and resettlement in the United States has been jeopardized by other policies the Trump administration has adopted.
The case challenges the decision to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which has helped refugees resettle in the United States under a law passed by Congress in 1980.
A federal judge initially blocked the suspension of the program in February, and an appeals court reversed part of that decision in March.
The lower court had ordered the Trump administration to move ahead and admit around 12,000 refugees who already had “arranged and confirmable” plans to travel to the United States before Jan. 20.
Last week, taking into account the appeals court’s decision, the judge in that case revised that order, instead requiring the government to consider each applicant on a case-by-case basis. The judge also ordered the government to immediately “process, admit and provide statutorily mandated resettlement support services” to 160 refugees who had plans to travel to the United States within two weeks of Jan. 20.
Abbie VanSickle contributed reporting from Washington.
Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the U.S. Department of Education, the White House and federal courts.
Camille Baker is a Times senior news assistant who also contributes reporting to the Data Journalism team.
The post Trump Canceled Deportation Protections. Here’s Where Legal Challenges Stand. appeared first on New York Times.
