By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully in ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans and Haitians. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision, stating that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority. While this ruling won’t immediately impact current circumstances due to a Supreme Court decision, the court found the secretary lacked the power to terminate an existing TPS designation, citing congressional intent and the consequences faced by TPS holders. The court also pointed to potential motivations behind the decision.
Read the original article here
US appeals court says Noem’s decision to end protections for Venezuelans in US was illegal, and this is a big deal, especially considering the current political climate. The court’s ruling means that a decision made by Governor Kristi Noem, potentially in the name of political expediency or some other motive, was found to be against the law. This ruling, in its essence, throws a wrench in the gears of what seems like a standard operating procedure for some in positions of power: do something, see if you get away with it, and only worry if you get caught.
But what does it really mean when a court says something is “illegal” in the context of high-profile political figures? Because, let’s be honest, it often feels like the consequences are…well, not exactly proportional to the offense. The frustration simmering beneath the surface is palpable, isn’t it? It seems to be a common perception that there’s a double standard at play, where ordinary citizens can face harsh penalties for relatively minor infractions, while those with connections or influence can seemingly sidestep accountability, even when multiple illegal acts are committed.
The reaction to this ruling, and similar situations, often follows a predictable pattern. There’s outrage, followed by calls for accountability, and then…well, sometimes, nothing much happens. The “regime,” in this case the Noem administration, keeps going, perhaps learning to be more discreet, but not necessarily changing its behavior. The cycle of accusation, investigation, and ultimately, inaction, fuels cynicism and distrust in the system. Many are quick to point out the hypocrisy of a system that appears to offer second and third chances to those in power, while ordinary people face the full force of the law.
The issue of accountability is clearly at the forefront. The question on everyone’s mind is, will there be any real consequences for Governor Noem? The fact that she might just “step down” with a golden parachute and the taxpayers foot the bill doesn’t exactly instill confidence in a fair and just system. It is also important to note that many people will probably see no justice, even if the court rules in their favor.
The fact that Trump’s people seem to act above the law and get away with it is not new. It’s a pattern, and it breeds a sense of impunity. It’s easy to see why some people feel as though this administration is untouchable. The legal proceedings take way too long, and even when a court finds fault, the remedy rarely undoes the harm caused. The fact that the court ruling could potentially become a catalyst for real change is the question on everybody’s minds. Will it affect the outcome of Noem’s political future? It’s easy to see how one might assume that almost everything she does is illegal, considering the current environment.
The general sentiment seems to be that until elected officials are held accountable for their actions, particularly those resulting from their department-wide failures, nothing will change. Laws need to be made to ensure that our elected public officials are required to face the brunt of any protection for department-wide failures. Until that point, nothing changes because the powers that be don’t face consequences. The current legal system is failing to serve its most basic function, which is to ensure justice for all.
Even if the court’s ruling itself is legally sound, the question remains: does it translate into tangible changes? Will it stop others from attempting similar actions? The answer is likely no, unless there are real consequences. It is a critical reminder that words on paper alone are insufficient. There is a need for tangible actions to enforce the law and deter future violations.
The discussion also raises questions about the roles of different branches of government. The judiciary can only rule on matters brought before them, so this can give an appearance that they are “activist judges”. When the executive branch is not compelled to follow the rulings of the judicial branch, and the legislative branch is not willing or able to hold the executive branch accountable, it creates a systemic imbalance.
The concern is, ultimately, that the system is not designed to ensure justice for all, but for those who are in power. The court’s ruling is important, but its significance will depend on whether it leads to real accountability, or simply becomes another instance of the powerful escaping the consequences of their actions.