Repeal

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled for a second time that the Trump administration may cancel the “temporary protected status” given to about 600,000 Venezuelans under the Biden administration.

The move, advocates for the Venezuelans said, means thousands of lawfully present individuals could lose their jobs, be detained in immigration facilities and deported to a country that the U.S. government considers unsafe to visit.

The high court granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside decisions of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“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,” the court said in an unsigned order Friday.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the appeal.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” she wrote. “Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.”

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had overstepped her legal authority by canceling the legal protection.

Her decision “threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray and exposed them to substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families and loss of employment,” the panel wrote.

But Trump’s lawyers said the law bars judges from reviewing these decisions by U.S. immigration officials.

Homeland Security applauded the Supreme Court’s action. “Temporary Protected Status was always supposed to be just that: Temporary,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Yet, previous administrations abused, exploited, and mangled TPS into a de facto amnesty program.”

Congress authorized this protected status for people who are already in the United States but cannot return home because their native countries are not safe.

The Biden administration offered the protections to Venezuelans because of the political and economic collapse brought about by the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro.

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary under Biden, granted the protected status to groups of Venezuelans in 2021 and 2023, totaling about 607,000 people.

Mayorkas extended it again in January, three days before Trump was sworn in. That same month, Noem decided to reverse the extension, which was set to expire for both groups of Venezuelans in October 2026.

Shortly afterward, Noem announced the termination of protections for the 2023 group by April.

In March, Chen issued an order temporarily pausing Noem’s repeal, which the Supreme Court set aside in May with only Jackson in dissent.

The San Francisco judge then held a hearing on the issue and concluded Noem’s repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and and not justified.

He said his earlier order imposing a temporary pause did not prevent him from ruling on the legality of the repeal, and the 9th Circuit agreed.

The approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who had TPS through the 2023 designation saw their legal status restored. Many reapplied for work authorization, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and a counsel for the plaintiffs.

In the meantime, Noem announced the cancellation of the 2021 designation, effective Nov. 7.

Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, went back to the Supreme Court in September and urged the justices to set aside the second order from Chen.

“This case is familiar to the Court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this Court’s orders on the emergency docket,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision once again reverses the legal status of the 2023 group and cements the end of legal protections for the 2021 group next month.

In a further complication, the Supreme Court’s previous decision said that anyone who had already received documents verifying their TPS status or employment authorization through next year is entitled to keep it.

That, Arulanantham said, “creates another totally bizarre situation, where there are some people who will have TPS through October 2026 as they’re supposed to because the Supreme Court says if you already got a document it can’t be canceled. Which to me just underscores how arbitrary and irrational the whole situation is.”

Advocates for the Venezuelans said the Trump administration has failed to show that their presence in the U.S. is an emergency requiring immediate court relief.

In a brief filed Monday, attorneys for the National TPS Alliance argued the Supreme Court should deny the Trump administration’s request because Homeland Security officials acted outside the scope of their authority by revoking the TPS protections early.

“Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days’ notice is unprecedented,” Jessica Bansal, an attorney representing the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, wrote in a statement. “Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal.”

Sept. 11 (UPI) — A coalition of House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle has voted to repeal laws authorizing the United States’ use of force in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, which critics say has been abused by presidents.

The bipartisan amendment attached to the annual National Defense Authorization Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in a 261-167 vote on Wednesday. Forty-nine Republicans joined 167 Democrats to pass the bill.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., a sponsor of the bill, described the decades-old authorizations as “long obsolete” and at risk of abuse by administrations of either party.

“It’s time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace,” the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said.

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force was originally passed by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. However, it has been used by administrations since to justify military strikes, including during the first Trump administration to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

The vote also comes on the heels of President Donald Trump using the military to attack a drug smuggling vessel earlier this month and Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this summer.

The proposal to repeal the AUMF was part of the $892.6 billion NDAA, which passed the House on Wednesday in a 231-196 vote, with only 17 Democrats giving it their approval.

The city of Norwalk will repeal a local law passed last year that banned homeless shelters as part of a settlement that will end a state lawsuit, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Friday.

Last fall, the state sued the southeastern Los Angeles County community alleging that Norwalk’s policy violated anti-discrimination, fair housing and numerous other state laws. Norwalk leaders had argued its shelter ban, which also blocked homeless housing developments, laundromats, payday lenders and other businesses that predominantly served the poor, was a necessary response to broken promises from other agencies to assist with the city’s homeless population.

“The Norwalk City Council’s failure to reverse this ban without a lawsuit, despite knowing it is unlawful, is inexcusable,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “No community should turn its back on its residents in need — especially while there are people in your community sleeping on the streets.”

The settlement, which needs judicial approval before taking effect, calls for Norwalk to repeal its ban at an upcoming City Council meeting, Bonta said in a release. In addition, the city will dedicate $250,000 toward the development of new affordable housing, formally acknowledge that the ban harmed fair housing efforts and accept increased state monitoring of its housing policies.

Bonta said that the legal action shows the state will not back down when local leaders attempt to block homeless housing.

“We are more than willing to work with any city or county that wants to do its part to solve our housing crisis,” Bonta said. “By that same token, if any city or county wants to test our resolve, today’s settlement is your answer.”

Norwalk officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Norwalk stood out compared to other communities that have found themselves in the state’s crosshairs in recent years. Many cities that have fought state housing policies, such as Beverly Hills and Coronado, are predominantly wealthy and white. By contrast, Norwalk is a Latino-majority, working- and middle-class city. Elected leaders in the city of 100,000 have said they’ve borne a disproportionate burden of addressing homelessness in the region.

Though the ban led to the cancellation of a planned shelter in Norwalk, city leaders contended that the policy largely was a negotiating tactic to ensure that the state and other agencies heard their concerns. Last year, the city said that even though the shelter ban remained on its books, it would not be enforced.

“This is not an act of defiance but rather an effort to pause, listen, and find common ground with the state,” city spokesperson Levy Sun said in a statement following a February court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

A group of business leaders submitted paperwork on Wednesday for a ballot measure that would repeal Los Angeles’ gross receipts tax, delivering some financial relief to local employers but also punching an $800-million hole in the city budget.

The proposed measure, called the “Los Angeles Cost of Living Relief Initiative,” would strip away a tax imposed on a vast array of businesses: entertainment companies, child care providers, law firms, accountants, healthcare businesses, nightclubs, delivery companies and many others, according to the group that submitted it.

Backers said that repealing a tax long reviled by the business community would help address the city’s economic woes, creating jobs, allowing businesses to stay in the city and making the economy “more affordable for all Angelenos.”

“This initiative is the result of the business community uniting to fight the anti-job climate at City Hall,” said Nella McOsker, president and CEO of the Central City Assn., a downtown-based business group.

McOsker, one of five business leaders who signed the ballot proposal, said city officials have “ignored the pleas of small- and medium-sized businesses for years.” As a result, scores of restaurants and other establishments, including the Mayan Theater, are closing, she said.

The filing of the ballot proposal immediately set off alarms at City Hall, where officials recently signed off on a plan to lay off hundreds of city workers in an attempt to balance this year’s budget. The city’s business tax generates more than $800 million annually for the general fund — the part of the budget that pays for police patrols, firefighters, paramedic response and other core services.

“Public safety is almost exclusively paid for by the general fund,” said City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, in an email to The Times. “This measure is an assault on public safety. Proponents of this measure will be directly responsible for cutting police or fire staffing in half if it passes.”

McOsker, asked about L.A.’s financial woes, said the city had a $1-billion shortfall this year and still succeeded in balancing the budget. She is the daughter of City Councilmember Tim McOsker, who sits on the five-member budget committee.

The proposed measure is backed by executives and board members with various groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce and VICA, the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn.

VICA president Stuart Waldman said the city’s economy has faltered amid a spate of increased taxes, higher city fees and new regulations. The most recent, he said, is the ordinance hiking the minimum wage for hotel employees and workers at Los Angeles International Airport to $30 per hour by 2028, which was approved by the City Council over objections from business leaders.

“We’re usually playing defense,” said Waldman, who also signed the ballot proposal. “We’ve decided the time has come to play offense.”

The business tax proposal is part of a larger ballot battle being waged this year between businesses and organized labor.

Last month, a group of airlines and hotel industry organizations turned in about 140,000 signatures for a proposed ballot measure aimed at overturning the newly approved hotel and LAX minimum wage. L.A. County election officials are currently verifying those signatures.

Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel employees, responded with its own package of countermeasures. One would require a citywide election on the construction or expansion of hotels, sports stadiums, concert halls and other venues. Another would hike the minimum wage for all workers in the city, raising it to the level of hotel and airport employees.

Two other measures from Unite Here take aim at companies that pay their CEOs more than a hundred times their median employee in L.A., either by forcing them to pay higher business taxes or by placing limitations on their use of city property.

The ongoing ballot battle is “escalating in ways that are reckless and disconnected from the real work of running a city,” said Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who heads the council’s budget committee. Yaroslavsky, in a statement, said the fight is “unproductive and needs to stop.”

“We just closed a billion-dollar budget gap, and basic services are already severely strained,” she said. “You don’t fix that by removing one of our largest revenue sources with no plan to replace it. We have to fix what is broken and that requires working together to offer real solutions.”

Josué Marcus, spokesperson for the Los Angeles City Clerk, said proponents of the latest ballot measure would need to gather about 140,000 valid signatures for it to qualify. The next city election is in June 2026. McOsker, for her part, said she believes that state law sets a lower threshold — only 44,000 — for measures that result in the elimination of taxes.

Industry leaders have long decried L.A.’s business tax, which is levied not on profits but on the gross receipts that are brought in — even where an enterprise suffers financial losses.

Former Mayor Eric Garcetti argued for eliminating the tax more than a decade ago, saying it puts the city’s economy at a competitive disadvantage. Once in office, he only managed to scale it back, amid concerns that an outright repeal would trigger cuts to city services.

Organizers of the latest proposal said it would not rescind business taxes on the sale of cannabis or medical marijuana, which were separately approved by voters.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Trump administration may seek to deport nearly 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted “temporary protected status” under the Biden administration to live and work in the United States.

In a brief order, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside the decision of a federal judge in San Francisco who had blocked the repeal announced by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to deny the appeal.

Trump’s lawyers said the law gave the Biden administration the discretion to grant temporary protection to Venezuelans, but also gave the new administration the same discretion to end it.

The court’s decision does not involve the several hundred Venezuelans who were held in Texas and targeted for speedy deportation to El Salvador because they were alleged to be gang members. The justices blocked their deportation until they were offered a hearing.

But it will strip away the legal protection for an estimated 350,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2023 and could not return home because of the “severe humanitarian” crisis created by the regime of Nicolas Maduro. An additional 250,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2021 remain protected until September.

“This is an abuse of the emergency docket,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor who is representing the Venezuelan beneficiaries of the temporary protected status, or TPS.

He added: “It would be preposterous to suggest there’s something urgent about the need to strip immigration status of several hundred thousand people who have lived here for years.”

It was one of two special authorities used by the Biden administration that face possible repeal now.

Last week, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to also revoke the special “grant of parole” that allowed 532,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States on personally financed flights.

A judge in Boston blocked Noem’s repeal of the parole authority.

The Biden administration granted the TPS under a 1990 law. It said the U.S. government may extend relief to immigrants who cannot return home because of an armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Shortly before leaving office, Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s Homeland Security secretary, extended the TPS for the Venezuelans for 18 months.

While nationals from 17 countries qualify for TPS, the largest number from any country are Venezuelans.

The Trump administration moved quickly to reverse course.

“As its name suggests,” TPS provides “temporary — not permanent — relief to aliens who cannot safely return to their homes,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal last week.

Shortly after she was confirmed, Noem said the special protection for the Venezuelans was “contrary to the national interest.”

She referred to them as “dirtbags.” In a TV interview, she also claimed that “Venezuela purposely emptied out their prisons, emptied out their mental health facilities and sent them to the United States of America.”

The ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California and the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law filed suit in San Francisco. Their lawyers argued the conditions in Venezuela remain extremely dangerous.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen agreed and blocked Noem’s repeal order from taking effect nationwide. He said the “unprecedented action of vacating existing TPS” was a “step never taken by any administration.”

He ruled Noem’s order was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it did not offer a reasoned explanation for the change in regulations. It was also “motivated by unconstitutional animus,” he said.

The judge also found that tens of thousands of American children could be separated from their parents if the adults’ temporary protected status were repealed.

When the 9th Circuit Court refused to lift the judge’s temporary order, the solicitor general appealed to the Supreme Court on May 1.

Last week, the State Department reissued an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately or to “prepare a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries and/or power of attorney.”

“Do not travel to or remain in Venezuela due to the high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure,” the advisory states.

Trump’s lawyers downplayed the impact of a ruling lifting TPS. They told the justices that none of the plaintiffs is facing immediate deportation.

Each of them “will have the ability to challenge on an individual basis whether removal is proper — or seek to stay, withhold or otherwise obtain relief from any order of removal — through ordinary” immigration courts, he said.

Arulanantham said the effect will be substantial. Many of the beneficiaries have no other protection from deportation. Some have pending applications, such as for asylum. But immigration authorities have begun detaining those with pending asylum claims. Others, who entered within the last two years, could be subject to expedited deportation.

Economic harm would be felt even more immediately, Arulanantham said. Once work permits provided through TPS are invalidated, employers would be forced to let workers go. That means families would be unable to pay rent or feed their children, as well as result in economic losses felt in communities across the country.