US top court weighs ending Syrians, Haitians protections


The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of the Donald Trump administration’s moves to deny humanitarian protection to Haitians and Syrians living in the country.

While hearing arguments in the case, several of the court’s conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the moves to deny Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation to more than 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians.

What to know about TPS status for Syrians and Haitians

TPS gives immigrants whose countries have been hit by war, natural disaster, or other disasters the right to live and work in the US until it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries.

Venezuelans fear deportation after Trump changes TPS rules

Please enable JavaScript to view this video, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

The State Department currently advises against any travel to Haiti or syriaWith Level 4 travel advisory, the highest level for both countries.

Haitians earned the TPS designation after a major 2010 earthquake, while Syrians were added to the list in 2012 after their country descended into civil war.

The Trump administration is trying to revoke the TPS designation of 13 of the 17 countries designated.

During his election campaign, Trump vowed to revoke TPS for Haitians, falsely claiming they were slaughtering domestic dogs and cats in Ohio.

US Supreme Court votes against second majority-black district in Louisiana

Also on Wednesday, in a separate case related to voting rights, the Supreme Court sharply limited the use of race in drawing electoral districts, with the justices ruling in favor of a challenge to a map that creates the second majority-Black district in the southern state of Louisiana.

The decision could change congressional maps across the country in Republican favor ahead of the November midterm elections.

The court’s decision found that the map in question amounted to unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that compliance with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) “cannot justify” the use of race in this case, arguing that Section 2 of the Act does not require states to draw districts primarily on racial lines.

“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights,” he said, referring to the group of non-black voters who brought the case.

Justice Elena Kagan, one of three liberal-leaning justices on the top court, warned in a dissent that the decision would have broad consequences, saying it risked allowing states to “systematically weaken the voting power of minority citizens” without a legal solution.

Texas lawmakers approve electoral map favoring Republicans

Please enable JavaScript to view this video, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

It’s unclear how much impact the decision will have on the November midterm elections, with primary elections scheduled for May 16 in white-majority Louisiana, where Black people make up about a third of the population.

Black people and other minorities support Democratic candidates.

Both Republicans and Democrats are trying to redraw the electoral maps in a way that could potentially change the balance of power in the current Republican-dominated Congress.

Edited by: Srinivas Majumdaru



<a href

Leave a Comment