Juez bloquea plan de Trump para retirar permisos de trabajo a beneficiarios del TPS y solicitantes de asilo

 

¿Qué decidió el juez Gorton?

El martes 21 de julio de 2026, el juez federal de distrito Nathaniel Gorton, con sede en Boston, se puso del lado de una coalición de organizaciones defensoras de los derechos de los inmigrantes y sindicatos que buscaban impedir que USCIS aplicara un conjunto de medidas destinadas a implementar nuevas restricciones migratorias aprobadas por el Congreso el año pasado.

Referencia geográfica

La orden es de carácter provisional: funciona como una pausa de emergencia (administrative stay) que congela la entrada en vigor de las políticas cuestionadas mientras el propio Gorton decide si concede una suspensión más prolongada. El juez adelantó que emitirá esa decisión antes del 5 de agosto de 2026.

Dato relevante

El caso se identifica formalmente como Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts et al. v. USCIS et al. y quedó radicado en Boston, una sede judicial frecuentemente elegida por litigantes que impugnan la agenda migratoria de la administración Trump.

Además de suspender parte de las restricciones relacionadas con las autorizaciones laborales, el juez Gorton determinó que, mientras el litigio continúa, USCIS no podrá imponer sanciones a quienes no paguen determinadas nuevas tarifas creadas por la legislación de 2025, al considerar que también forman parte del conflicto legal analizado por el tribunal.

No obstante, la orden no elimina por ahora dichas tarifas, sino que impide que la agencia penalice inmediatamente a quienes aún no las hayan pagado hasta que exista una decisión judicial más amplia.

Materiales y servicios jurídicos

La orden emitida por el tribunal de Boston no amplía la duración del TPS, no concede nuevas designaciones y no restablece automáticamente programas previamente terminados. Lo que hace es impedir, de forma provisional, que determinadas medidas relacionadas con los permisos de trabajo entren en vigor mientras el tribunal analiza si la administración actuó conforme a la ley.

El origen de la disputa: la ley fiscal de 2025

La controversia se remonta a la extensa ley de gasto público e impuestos aprobada por el Congreso de mayoría republicana en julio de 2025, conocida informalmente como la "One Big Beautiful Bill Act". Esa legislación introdujo, por primera vez, el cobro de tarifas para presentar solicitudes de asilo y acortó la vigencia de los permisos de trabajo otorgados bajo el Estatus de Protección Temporal.

Según los demandantes, USCIS aplicó esas disposiciones de forma retroactiva y sin abrir un período de comentario público, lo que en su opinión viola la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo (APA). El resultado práctico habría sido que miles de beneficiarios de TPS provenientes de El Salvador, Sudán y Ucrania perdieran su autorización de empleo a partir del miércoles 22 de julio de 2026, junto con cambios que también habrían facilitado el rechazo de solicitudes de asilo y la cancelación inmediata de los permisos de trabajo asociados a ellas.

Continúe leyendo en https://inmigracionyvisas.com/a6666-juez-bloquea-trump-retirar-permisos-trabajo-tps-asilo

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to End TPS for Haitians and Syrians, Putting 356,000 Immigrants at Risk of Deportation

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Donald Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 356,000 Haitian and Syrian nationals. The ruling could leave thousands of immigrants without work authorization or protection from deportation, while setting a significant legal precedent for future TPS cases in the United States.

The decision overturns lower court orders that had temporarily blocked the termination of the program and strengthens the Executive Branch's authority to end TPS designations without extensive judicial review.

What Exactly Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide?

The June 25, 2026 ruling in the consolidated cases Mullin v. Doe (No. 25-1083) and Trump v. Miot (No. 25-1084) addressed a key legal question: Can Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries ask federal courts to block the termination of their TPS designation while legal challenges remain pending?

The Supreme Court's majority answered no. The Court held that the federal TPS statute—specifically 8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A)—expressly limits judicial review of decisions made by the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the designation, extension, or termination of Temporary Protected Status.

🚨 What the Supreme Court's Decision Did — and Did Not Do

What it did: It lifted the lower court injunctions that had blocked the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syria . As a result, the federal government may immediately proceed with ending both TPS designations.

What it did not do: The Court did not declare Haiti or Syria to be safe countries. It did not order the automatic deportation of TPS beneficiaries. It also did not rule on the underlying legal claims challenging whether the TPS terminations were lawful or discriminatory. Those lawsuits will continue in the lower federal courts.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

The 6–3 Vote: How the Justices Ruled

⚖️ Majority Opinion — In Favor of the Trump Administration

6

Conservative Justices:
Samuel Alito (Opinion Author)
John Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett

📋 Dissent — In Support of TPS Beneficiaries

3

Liberal Justices:
Elena Kagan (Dissent Author)
Sonia Sotomayor
Ketanji Brown Jackson

Note: Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered her dissent orally from the bench—an uncommon step generally reserved for cases that a justice considers especially significant.

The vote followed the Court's familiar ideological divide, mirroring previous immigration decisions issued during President Trump's first administration as well as recent TPS litigation involving Venezuelan nationals. One of the most notable moments occurred when Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, an unusual practice typically reserved for cases involving profound disagreement. Justice Samuel Alito publicly responded before the Court moved on to the next case, an exchange that legal observers described as highly unusual.

↑ Back to Table of Contents

The Two Supreme Court Cases: Different Facts, Same Outcome

Haiti Case

Five Haitian Nationals v. Secretary Kristi Noem

Five Haitian nationals filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem unlawfully terminated Haiti's TPS designation without consulting other federal agencies and that the decision was motivated by racial discrimination. The district court agreed, finding evidence of what it described as "anti-Black and anti-Haitian animus." The U.S. Court of Appeals later declined to stay that ruling.

Syria Case

Seven Syrian Nationals in New York

Seven Syrian nationals—some current TPS holders and others seeking protection—filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November 2025, the federal judge ruled in their favor, concluding that Secretary Noem failed to follow the legal procedures required to terminate Syria's TPS designation. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to suspend that order.

Key Allegation

Plaintiffs Alleged the Government Relied on a False Statement

During proceedings before the Supreme Court, attorneys representing the Haitian plaintiffs argued that the federal government relied on what they described as "a knowingly false statement" claiming that Secretary Noem had consulted with the U.S. Department of State before ending Haiti's TPS designation. According to the plaintiffs, no such consultation occurred. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion did not address this allegation.