Judges Side With Trump Admin Decision to End TPS Amnesty for 300,000 Migrants

President Donald Trump just secured a major immigration victory.

A three-judge panel in California’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a 2:1 decision hat Trump can end the temporary amnesty provided to roughly 300,000 migrants from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan.

Trump won the legal round in his fight to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants from El Salvador and other countries who came to the U.S. after disasters in their homelands.

“Assuming the ruling withstands possible scrutiny from the Supreme Court, it means Trump could deport more than 300,000 immigrants, many of whom have been living and working in the U.S. for years,” New York Daily News reported.

In 2017, Trump announced he would end the TPS status because El Salvador and the countries had recovered from their disaster.

Pro-migration groups have spent years trying to fight the Trump administration on this, arguing that the roughly 300,000 migrants would be at risk if they were deported back to their home countries.

“Despite overwhelming evidence that Trump’s TPS terminations were motivated by racism, this action will move forward and it now clears the way for the Trump Administration to de-document and tear apart 400,000 families,” said a statement from the National TPS Alliance.

“In as little as six months … TPS holders would lose their lawful status and their U.S. citizen children could be forced to make an impossible choice between their families and their homes.  Now more than ever it is imperative that Congress act to protect TPS families,” the group added.

Back in 2018, a Californian district judge blocked Trump and ordered him to continue TPS for people from El Salvador and similar groups from Sudan, Haiti, and Nicaragua.

In this latest ruling from Sept. 14, two of the three judges on the panel slammed the lower-court district judge who had preserved the amnesty:

The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction when it deemed Plaintiffs’ APA claim reviewable [by judges].

Second, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that Plaintiffs presented at least serious questions on the merits of their Equal Protection claim.

The panel concluded that Plaintiffs failed to present even serious questions on the merits of their [racial] animus claim. The panel explained that, while the district court’s findings that President Trump expressed racial animus against “nonwhite, non-European” immigrants, and that the White House influenced the TPS termination decisions, were supported by record evidence, the district court cited no evidence linking the President’s animus to the TPS terminations.

Panel member Judge Ryan Nelson reminded the plaintiffs that judges do not invent laws:

Our sole responsibility as Article III judges is narrow—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis added). And here, the most salient human components of this case do not answer that question. But the law does … I concur in the panel’s holding, which does not opine on the moral equities or the merits of President Trump’s political statements.

The third judge on the panel, Morgan Christen, said judges should be allowed to block Trump’s political choices:

The irreparable harm faced by plaintiffs—who include 300,000 non-citizens and 200,000 U.S. citizen children facing separation from their parents or their country—could hardly be more compelling. The district court also considered the public’s interest, including the integral role of TPS holders in national and local economies, the public’s interest in avoiding dividing families, and the harm to local communities. The court recognized that the government could not in good faith argue that it would suffer any concrete harm if TPS holders are allowed to remain in the United States pending resolution of this litigation because they have been lawfully present in the United States for many years.

While liberals obviously are not happy about this ruling, many Americans would certainly agree that available jobs and resources should go to legal American citizens.