Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
edog
@edog1970.bsky.social
· 10h
edog
@edog1970.bsky.social
· 10h
edog
@edog1970.bsky.social
· 15h
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
Reposted by edog
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 25A326
KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR A STAY
[October 3, 2025]
In March of this year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a preliminary order postponing the effective date of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to remove "temporary protected status" (TPS) from Venezuelan nationals living in the United States. See 8 U.S. C. §1254a; 5 U.S. C. §705.
In May, this Court stayed that order while the Government appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the District Court's preliminary order. Last month, the District Court entered final judgment in respondents' favor, holding unlawful and setting aside the Secretary's actions effectuating her decision— namely, her vacatur of a pending extension of TPS for Venezuelan nationals, and her termination of that status itself.
See 5 U. S. C. §706(2). (The District Court also concluded that the Secretary unlawfully vacated a TPS extension for Haitian nationals. The Government now seeks to stay the portions of the District Court's judgment pertaining to Ven-ezuela, but not Haiti. See Application 7, n. 6.)
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties' legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreifwdli7xxfny6ivyfuusq7lptvsyntu7ypokqdyrgpoxlyw4dmokq@jpeg)
Reposted by edog
![Our lower court colleagues have already chosen the obvi-ous—i.e., least disruptive and most humane-answer to that question.? So, this stay application presents us with an antecedent decision: whether the Government's interest in terminating TPS right now is so urgent that this Court, rather than the able judges currently exercising jurisdiction over the matter, should be the one to decide those individuals' interim fate. See Noem v. Doe, 605 U.S. .
(2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 7-8); see also Magnum Import Co. v.
Coty, 262 U. S. 159, 164 (1923) (explaining that "this Court requires an extraordinary showing" before it will override the stay decision of a lower court, rendered "with a much fuller knowledge [of the case] than we can have"). Only if the Government demonstrates such a time-sensitive need should we even consider vetoing the lower courts' unanimous judgment about the most equitable interim status.
The Government has made no such showing. Yet, for the second time in this same case, the Court grants it the](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreielodg7leawuocyugdofvzga3hterlqeg3gyz5gdqg3ykvohz6nf4@jpeg)
Reposted by edog
