SCOTUS Weighs Whether Temporary Status For Foreign Migrants Is Actually Temporary
SG Sauer contended that the law governing TPS prevents courts from reviewing a president’s decision to designate or end TPS status for groups of foreign nationals. That contention tracks the argument that the TPS statute commits the decision to the Executive (i.e., it is largely discretionary), and that the President/Secretary’s designation/termination decisions are therefore insulated from judicial review-often framed as being “committed to agency discretion by law” (and, as a matter of doctrine, involving separation-of-powers concerns that counseling courts to avoid reviewing discretionary political judgments).
But whether courts actually accept complete nonreviewability depends on the case and claims asserted. Courts commonly distinguish between:
– **Reviewability of whether the statute’s required procedures were followed** or whether the government acted within legal bounds (often reviewable), versus
– **Reviewability of the substantive merits** of why TPS was designated/ended for a particular group (often more restricted or limited).
If you tell me the case name (or where this statement appears), I can give the precise holding and the court’s reasoning in that decision.
SG Sauer argued that the law governing TPS bars courts from reviewing a president’s decision to designate or terminate TPS status for groups of foreign nationals.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
