It will make it to SCOTUS where a 5-4 decision will say that it's ok.

Trump will call FIFA to clear this up

The judge quoted many of Trump’s comments against immigrants of color, including the time he railed against people coming to the U.S. from “shithole countries” or when he claimed Haitians are “poisoning the blood” of our country. In his second term as president, Trump attacked Somali Americansand accused them of adding “nothing” to the country, and oversaw violent immigration crackdowns across the country, particularly in Minnesota.

Marbley also highlighted Trump and Vance’s made-up accusation that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pet cats and dogs. 

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance said in 2024, which Marbley quoted directly.

The Supreme Court already said these exact Trump comments weren't racist in the TPS case and that was 6-3. And they seem OK with Trump hating immigrants.

But no, Alito said. There’s a perfectly nonracial explanation for all of the dog whistles. “None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.” In other words, the Trump administration hates all types of immigration and wanted to roll back the TPS system as a whole; therefore, it couldn’t have acted racially in its decision. On top of that, the court said that it’s pretty much just a coincidence that the majority of TPS countries are predominantly nonwhite. That’s not the administration’s fault; it’s because “the great majority of countries granted TPS have ranked among the poorest nations of the world, and no European nation falls into that category.” The stability (and therefore superiority) of European nations is evidence to be used against any argument that the Trump administration was unfairly motivated by illegal racial animus.

Opinion & Order

trump supporters - "just because we support trump, doesn't make us racist!"

"you're clearly racist" - Federal Judge

We knew this back with the Central Park Six, We knew this back when his father was sued for refusing to rent to black families. We've known this for decades.

Maybe the administration just misunderstood the meaning and the mandate of the White house.

Opinion & Order

It's refreshing to see a Preliminary Injunction (PI) granted against the federal administration. As a reminder, a PI requires four legs.

Courts consider four factors “to be balanced” in evaluating whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) “whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits”; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury absent the injunction”; (3) whether the injunction would cause substantial harm to others”; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of an injunction.”

By no means is the case over, but while it drags out in court -- or if the USCIS and DHS declined to proceed after getting the headlines they wanted, and seeing the judicial writing on the wall -- the policy is blocked and benefit applications will continue to be processed.

What is notable is that, in addition to the usual thoroughness for the first leg, the court found that for the fourth leg, the public interest did not side with the government. Normally, when the government is a party, it is a rebuttable presumption that the government is acting in the public interest, because they're the the people's government. But even if in the public interest, following the law is also in the public interest.

The Government has not shown how its national security interests could be harmed by requiring Defendants to adhere to the law—specifically, the requirements of the APA, the INA, and the regulations that govern USCIS. By contrast, there is an overriding public interest in ensuring that Government agencies adhere to the letter of the law.

Now, any PI is subject to being appealed due to supposed error on any of those legs, but whereas the Circuit Courts might focus their review on the sufficiency of the four legs and explaining their work and finally returning the case to the District Court, we've seen how the currently composed Supreme Court is prepared to complete vacate orders and injunctions, without explanation, returning the case to the District Court to continue but with no indication of what the error was.

This, rather wastefully, usually means that when the real meat of the case is adjudicated, the trial judge will have no idea whether the initial analysis in law (the first leg) was off the mark or not. Inevitably, the case would be appealed up the chain, and even then, there's no guarantee that the Supreme Court will give any additional guidance for the lower judges.

So even while this is clearly a short-term reprieve for the benefit applicants, the eventual course of this patently ridiculous system will mire it all in abundant confusion. One of the purposes of a multi-tier judicial system is that the top court should't have to be micromanaging every case, even those of profound importance. Appeals are not supposed to be commonplace, since judges and appeals courts are supposed to be competent at reading the law and applying prior jurisprudence. The very fact that this current Supreme Court is nosing into so many cases is an indictment of themselves, failing to give guidance to their colleagues in the lower courts.

To the appellants, this is a massive waste of time and money. To the lawyers, this is an embarrassment. To the public, a grand shame. And to the justices, an indelible mark.