this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025

506 points (99.6% liked)

News

28671 readers

6230 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

506

Trump can't revoke legal status of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, judge rules (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Trump administration can't immediately revoke the deportation protections and work permits of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who entered the U.S. legally under a Biden-era program, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with its plan to terminate the legal status of those migrants on April 24. The administration had warned those affected by its announcement that they would need to self deport by that date or face arrest and deportation by federal immigration agents.

But Talwani suspended the deportation warnings the government had sent and prohibited officials from revoking the legal protection, known as immigration parole, that the Biden administration granted to more than half a million Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

Trump can do whatever the fuck he wants, because nobody is actually doing anything to stop him other than meekly posting on social media and waving some signs around. Democracy and the rule of law was always sketchy at best in the US, but it's been dead for months now. And no amount of adorable weekend protests that are sanctioned by the cops are gonna change that.

If you aren't getting tear gassed, shot at, and imprisoned, you're being allowed to throw a tantrum to keep you from doing anything useful, and your actions are performative at best.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 hours ago

Judges also ruled that he couldn't black-bag legal residents and citizens and send them to prison camps in El Salvador. He ignored the judges and did it anyway. Judges then said he had to return the people he kidnapped. He ignored them again.

A law is only a law if it is enforced. Until I see that fat orange fuck being perp walked through the Rose Garden in handcuffs, laws don't mean shit.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 hours ago

Trump: deports them anyway.

Autocrat gonna autocrat. He’s pretty much established he doesn’t care what the courts say, and his ICE Stasi don’t care either.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago

Trump is being stopped and paused like crazy. He's trying to do way more than what he's actually doing. Appearing strong is what he wants. And people who are strong don't worry about looking that way.

He is very far from inevitable, though his little oompa loompas sure like to pretend otherwise.

[–] Hozerkiller 11 points 15 hours ago

That should solve the problem. International crisis averted.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 18 hours ago

It is disgusting that the Orange Turd gets to decide what happens to these people. He should be in jail instead of in the white house.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 19 hours ago

Watch him do it anyway.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

The courts are irrelevant. I guess they might as well keep doing their thing, but they'll just be ignored.

[–] sik0fewl 2 points 8 hours ago

They made themselves irrelevant and this will be their legacy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago

They're just keeping America on life support and avoiding admitting America is dead

[–] [email protected] 23 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

The pressure point needs to be congress. Those GOP fuckers need to be afraid of losing their jobs sooner than 2 years from now. Citizens need a way to remove their congressman who is not doing what they want them to do.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago

They will only be concerned once "jobs" become "lives"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

There is a way to remove congress people ahead of their term.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 18 hours ago

The problem is a lot of Americans want this, they're cheering.

[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tomorrow's headline: Trump revokes legal status of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 day ago (1 children)

... and that one judge.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 22 hours ago

Oh there would be more than one. Wouldn't surprise me before this is all said and done.

[–] Nemean_lion 118 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yah, he doesn't care. He doesn't care about the law or anyone that gives a fuck about it. What is anyone going to do to stop him?

[–] floofloof 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If Trump and his people ignore the courts, the only way to stop them is physically.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, is that the sound of a mob assembling an iconic French life-discontinuing apparatus on Pennsylvania Avenue I hear?

[–] CileTheSane 3 points 14 hours ago

Sadly no. That's the French protesting increasing the retirement age.

Americans witnessing the loss of democracy and due process? "I sleep".

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

White House: "wyd?"

[–] floofloof 46 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But can the court stop his Gestapo from kidnapping these people anyway and trafficking them for torture, slavery, imprisonment and possibly execution? Because they're just doing it regardless of what the courts rule.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 15 hours ago

Donnie Moscow right now.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who's going to stop him? At this point, it seems pretty obvious he can just do whatever he wants. The Constitution is dead, right along with the Judiciary's authority to challenge him.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

SCOTUS gave him total freedom from judicial authority.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They didn't really, though. They gave him immunity from being prosecuted for what he does as president...but that doesn't mean everything he does is legal. His orders can still be struck down in court (or at least they should be).

The problem right now, is the fact that he is just ignoring the court's orders. That is still illegal, even if he may not necessarily be prosecuted for it later. We'll see what happens though. At some point the law needs to either hold up against him, or it means nothing, and the Constitution itself is no longer valid.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

His orders can be struck down? You mean like the two times they defied court orders just today, and one of them was a unanimous SCOTUS ruling, with this Court?

That's the freedom from judicial authority he was given.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Except, that's NOT the freedom he was given. That's what he's doing...but that was not what the Supreme Court ruled.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago

If they're doing it, then they have the freedom to do it, until something actually stops them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

No, that's noncompliance - and by completely misrepresenting the supreme court's order, they're playing chicken

The judiciary moves slowly. They have powers they're hesitant to use - they can order Marshalls to act and see who they obey, or they could deputize a bunch of retired special forces to enforce their decisions outside of the executive branch's control

It's not over... Not just yet, anyways. But it's very, very close - if the judiciary backs down, it's over. If the administration holds their ground until there's an armed skirmish, it's going to get very messy. If both sides keep up this back and forth without forcing a standoff, it could drag on for a while

But it's not over yet, it's just not looking good

[–] [email protected] 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

US Marshals are under DoJ. The only thing that the courts can do is request that Marshals take action. I'm sure Bondi would get right on that.

There's a hearing today on Abrego Garcia, in the wake of SCOTUS' unanimous but "maddeningly vague" order to "facilitate" his return, and the administration's clear failure to do so.

The judiciary moves slowly.

It does, and they're taking every advantage of that to log jam that process even more, and do whatever they want in the meantime. There needs to be rapid and effective action now, and there's only one more box of liberty to get it from.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, the Marshalls are. But hey could find Marshalls who take their oath seriously, or they could deputize whoever they like to enforce the court's ruling

[–] [email protected] 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

But [t]hey could find Marshalls who take their oath seriously, ...

That's wrong. The request from the court doesn't just go to the US Marshals. It goes to DoJ.

... or they could deputize whoever they like to enforce the court's ruling.

Also wrong. The US Marshals Service can deputize Marshals. The courts cannot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

Source

They can do this, there's a strong legal argument for it that goes far beyond just this... And where we are now that's enough she could act

It wouldn't make that person a marshall, they'd be a deputy. They're limited in the scope of what they can do, I'm not sure if they could be paid or how, it might break a whole bunch of norms - but it can be done

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

Fair enough - can. Won't, but can.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

The SCOTUS ruling you’re referring to, while still a terrible precedent as a matter of policy, did not give him a blanket legal right to disregard court orders. He’s just doing it anyway.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 16 hours ago

If he is immune from criminal prosecution for "official acts", it is fully legal for him to defy court orders about "official acts". That ruling gave him unchecked power. That ruling was our Enabling Act.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 21 hours ago

Maybe not technically, but it effectively did. There’s no material difference.

You’re falling prey to the idea that in theory, theory and practice are identical, but in practice, theory and practice can often diverge sharply.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Donald: LAAAAWWWW?!

[–] johncandy1812 1 points 15 hours ago

Laaaawwww

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So?

He’ll deport them and get a slap on the wrist and a strongly worded letter from a judge that he’ll ignore.

And no one will do anything about it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

He won't ignore the letter, he'll frame it and put it above his toilet.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I think it's cute that judges pretend the US still has a Judiciary

[–] [email protected] 4 points 15 hours ago

Well, we do, but it's for everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Much of the population as well...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Soon to be overruled by the Supreme Court with no need to even file!!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the SCOTUS are starting to push back but now realising they can't enforce shit. And they gave this dude immunity last year.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 hours ago

Yep they have zero power or authority now. I'm sure the DoJ would help enforce any rulings that they agree with. They'll just ignore any they don't.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

He can definitely ignore it, though.

load more comments