Judge blocks administration from ending TPS protections for more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants
On Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026, in front of the Orange County Courthouse, advocates and former elected officials asked President Trump to create a pathway to permanent residency for Haitians who face deportations as their temporary protected status expires on Feb. 3. (Natalia Jaramillo/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants.
In an 83-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes granted a stay maintaining the legal status of Haitian nationals “pending judicial review.” In her ruling, she accused Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of “preordaining” her termination decision, saying she “did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”
“There is an old adage among lawyers,” Judge Reyes wrote. “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.”
“Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side — or at least has ignored them,” Reyes continued. “Does not have the law on her side — or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter).”
Judge Reyes wrote that while Noem has a First Amendment right “to call immigrants killers, leeches, [and] entitlement junkies,” she is constrained by the Constitution and federal law to “apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program.”
“The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste,” Reyes wrote. “Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight.”
The federal judge noted that Noem “has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk — twelve countries up, twelve countries down.”
“The statutory design is straightforward: TPS exists because threats to life exist; when the threat persists, so should TPS protection, unless the Secretary articulates a well-reasoned and well-supported national interest to the contrary,” she wrote.
The D.C. federal judge listed the five plaintiffs by name, saying, “They are not, it emerges, ‘killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.'”
“They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse,” Judge Reyes wrote.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin released a statement to ABC News on Monday night, saying, “Supreme Court, here we come.”
“This is lawless activism that we will be vindicated on. Haiti’s TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago, it was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades. Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench,” McLaughlin said.
US President Donald Trump departs the North Portico of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a historic first for a sitting president, as the justices considered his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
No cameras were allowed inside the courtroom. Trump’s motorcade arrived outside the building on Wednesday morning shortly before arguments began. His motorcade later departed the court after Solicitor General John Sauer’s presentation on behalf of the government.
After the hearing concluded, Trump wrote in a social media post that the U.S. is “stupid” to allow the practice.
“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Trump posted.
According to the Pew Research Center, 32 other countries, most of them in the Western Hemisphere, have laws similar to the U.S. guaranteeing citizenship to children born in the country.
Trump, who entered the court at 9:47 a.m. wearing a red tie and blue suit, was seated in the front row of the public gallery alongside White House Counsel David Warrington, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
As Sauer parried with the justices, Trump sat attentive and expressionless. His presence in the chamber was not publicly announced or acknowledged by any of the justices on the bench. Trump did not engage with anyone seated beside him or in the chamber.
Trump previously floated attending arguments last year when the court took up his global tariff policy, but ultimately he did not attend.
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Supreme Court in the wake of the ruling invalidating most of his tariffs, including two justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
“I love a few of them, I don’t like some others,” Trump said on Tuesday when asked which justices he would be listening for most closely.
Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.
Lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order.
American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued on behalf of the class of plaintiffs. Wang herself is a birthright citizen, born in Oregon to Taiwanese parents.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance, saying he will “watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship.”
“Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them,” he said.
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news conference on the Epstein Files on Capitol Hill February 26, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is voting Wednesdayon a Democratic-led Iran war powers resolution that calls for congressional approval for military action against Iran.
The initial procedural vote to pass the resolution, introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff, would direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. It comes after recent U.S. strikes on Iran that killed several Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran.
There is no timeline in the bill, so if it passed and President Donald Trump signed it, which is highly unlikely, the U.S. would have to draw down troops.
Because this bill is privileged, it would only need 51 votes to advance and ultimately be approved by the Senate. It’s not yet clear whether the legislation will have that support, but at this time it seems unlikely to advance.
Earlier this year, a similar resolution concerning military action in Venezuela passed an initial procedural test vote when a small handful of Republican senators voted with Democrats to move it forward. Some of those Republicans were ultimately swayed to revoke their support for that legislation during a vote on final passage, and the bill was ultimately defeated by Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote.
This time around though, Republicans seem even more inclined to support Trump’s actions in Iran.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, of Missouri, was one of the Republicans who initially supported the Venezuela war powers resolution before ultimately voting against it during a vote of final passage. His switch in position during that vote in January came after Trump attacked Hawley and the other Republicans who initially supported the proposal.
Hawley told ABC News on Tuesday that he would vote against the Iran war powers resolution.
The legislation cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted after that 60-day period and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
“I think they’re in compliance with the statute. The statute gives them 60 days, gives the administration 60 days to conduct activity without having to come back to … Congress for authorization, unless they’re ground troops. My view has always been, ground troops will require congressional authorization. So they’re currently none involved, none have been involved, and they’re following the War Powers Act,” Hawley said.
Still, Democrats say the vote is critical. Sen. Kaine, of Virginia, who is leading the Iran resolution and who has been an outspoken proponent of Congress’ role in declaring war, said the vote will show where everyone stands on the conflict.
“We’re going to put everybody on the record [Wednesday]. Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Kaine said on Tuesday. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”
Without the support of at least a few Republicans, the Iran resolution is likely to fail to advance during Wednesday’s vote.
Even if this legislation were to pass, it would still require approval in the House and the signature of the president to become law.
The House is set to vote on its own war powers resolution later this week. The non-binding measure, introduced by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, would not be subject to the president’s signature or veto if it passed both houses of Congress.
On Wednesday, Johnson expressed confidence that Republicans will defeat the House’s war powers resolution, despite some reservations expressed by a handful of conservatives. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, so it would only take a few defections for the bill to pass.
“I think passage of a war powers resolution right now would be a terrible, dangerous idea,” Johnson warned. “It would empower our enemies. It would kneecap our own forces, and it would take the ability of the U.S. military and the commander in chief away from completing this critical mission to keep everybody safe.”
ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on March 22, 2026. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — As the war with Iran enters its fourth week, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said the Trump administration must make its objectives of the operation clearer before Congress approves additional funding.
“What is the objective, the primary objective?” ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl asked Tillis in an interview that aired Sunday.
“I don’t know, and I think it’s a real problem,” the North Carolina senator said.
Praising last summer’s “Operation Midnight Hammer” when the U.S. military struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tillis said he “could see why we needed to finish some of the work and go back in,” but the weeks-long operation now is “ambiguous.”
“I don’t know what our long-term strategic goals are, but we’re going to need to know that,” Tillis said. “I generally support what the president’s doing in Iran, but if we’re going to get anything close to the $200 billion supplemental request, we got to get 60 votes, and we’re going to have to figure out how to accomplish that.”
The Pentagon is seeking $200 billion in funding, according to a senior administration official. While he said the topline number could move, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed Thursday that the department will request additional funding for the war, saying, “It takes money to kill bad guys.”
As the war rages on, Iran continues to block the critical Strait of Hormuz. A significant share of the world’s oil passes through the strait each day, and the blockage has surged global oil prices. Gas prices in the U.S. are up $1 per gallon on average since the war began Feb. 28, according to GasBuddy.
“Can’t all of a sudden walk away” President Donald Trump has mused about “winding down” the war soon and last week he suggested in a social media post that he may pull out of Iran before the Strait of Hormuz issues are resolved.
“I wonder what would happen if we ‘finished off’ what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called ‘Strait?’ That would get some of our non-responsive ‘Allies’ in gear, and fast!!!” Trump posted Wednesday.
Tillis was critical of that option, arguing leaving the strait as it is harms U.S. allies in the region.
“We have a number of partners and allies in the region whose economic fortunes rests on the Strait of Hormuz being open,” Tillis said. “We’ve decided that we’re going to project power and try and produce good outcomes in the Middle East. You can’t all of a sudden walk away after you’ve kind of created the event and expect other people to pick it up and leave — and leave a good taste in their mouth.”
After Trump lashed out U.S. allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for not assisting the U.S. with opening the Strait of Hormuz, labeling them “cowards,” Tillis — the co-chair of the Senate NATO Observer Group — defended those allies’ decisions.
“I don’t think that they’re cowards. I think they’re people that weren’t consulted on a major military operation, and I’d have the same reaction if I was the head of state,” Tillis said.
“These folks love the United States,” he added. “But they don’t appreciate the way they’re being treated right now. And I can, I can absolutely understand that.”
“American lives will be lost” without NATO The North Carolina Republican also pushed back on Trump’s recent suggestion that he could leave NATO without consulting Congress.
“Well, that’s factually not true. The president of the United States cannot withdraw from NATO,” Tillis said. “American lives have been saved by the NATO alliance, and American lives will be lost without it.”
In June, Tillis announced he would not seek reelection this year. No longer concerned with having to run a campaign, the self-described “plain-spoken” senator has become even more so.
He didn’t vote for the Republicans’ tax overhaul and spending cuts bill. He’s not planning to vote for the “SAVE America Act,” a Trump priority. He called out Trump’s Justice Department for seeking indictments against Democrats Trump accused of seditious behavior for posting a video telling service members not to follow illegal orders, and he’s threatening to hold up any nominee to the Federal Reserve until the DOJ ends its probe of Chair Jerome Powell.
But no members of Trump’s administration have received more criticism from Tillis than Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff to the president and one of his top advisers on immigration, and outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Tillis has called the pair “sycophants” and called for Trump to fire Noem, which he ultimately did.
The president has praised Miller over the years. In October, he said he was “doing an unbelievable job” and told him, “The people of this country love you.”
But Tillis said he doesn’t think Miller is “particularly loyal” to the president.
“If the president thinks that Stephen Miller is worried about [Trump’s] legacy, he’s fooling himself. Stephen Miller is worried about his own legacy,” Tillis said.
A “healthy” relationship with Trump Still, Tillis told Karl he believes he has a “healthy relationship” with the president.
“There are aspects about this president that I admire and will always admire, but I do not admire bad advice, and I hate bad execution, and when I see it and I think it’s undermining the president of the United States’ agenda, then I’m going to call them out,” he said.
Tillis said his motivation for criticizing the administration and some of its policies are to help Republicans perform well in this year’s midterm elections.
“I’m not trying to undermine Republicans. I’m trying to undermine efforts that are going to make it very difficult for Republicans to get elected in November,” he said.
Asked by Karl why he feels liberated to speak out since announcing his retirement, Tillis had a simple answer.
“When people have said, ‘You seem a little bit more liberated.’ I said, ‘No, s—, Sherlock,'” Tillis said. “I no longer have to view things through a political lens.”
