Rogue Judges Are Helping Temporary Migrants Sidestep Key SCOTUS Ruling
1 Trending: New Jersey Dem Governor Pledges Transparency, Blocks Election Docs Release
2 Trending: Don’t Let Graham Platner’s Replacement Fool You. He’s Still A Crazy Leftist
3 Trending: Los Angeles Leaders Fail At Everything, And You’ll Never Guess Who They Blame
4 Trending: Trump Admin Finally Cracks Down On Foreign Students Subverting America
Rogue Judges Are Helping Temporary Migrants Sidestep Key SCOTUS Ruling
While efforts to effectively sidestep the Supreme Court’s TPS ruling seem ripe for dismissal, several rogue judges are entertaining such chicanery.
Share Article on Facebook
Share Article on Twitter
Share Article on Truth Social
Share Article via Email
Left-wing attorneys representing temporarily-present migrants are trying to sidestep a key U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively greenlighting their clients’ deportation — and a cabal of rogue judges are seemingly helping them do it.
The ploy was disclosed in a CNN report published Monday about ongoing efforts to keep foreign nationals under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program in the United States, well, permanently. Titled, “Inside the fights to maintain TPS status for thousands after the Supreme Court sided with Trump,” the article delves into how these left-wing attorneys are looking for ways to essentially skirt the high court’s Mullin v. Doe ruling from last month.
In its 6-3 decision, SCOTUS affirmed that the TPS statute bars federal courts from reviewing non-constitutional claims against the government’s TPS decisions. The majority further shot down the constitutional claim by one of the challengers that Trump’s termination of TPS for Haitians was racially motivated.
According to CNN, the left-wing lawyers representing various foreign national groups have since “repackaged their earlier procedural arguments into new constitutional claims or signaled plans to do so soon” in an apparent attempt to runaround Doe. This even includes some attorneys embracing “novel, non-constitutional arguments about whether the [Department........
