Annotation

Amir Qureshi

@amir_note

The jurisdictional catch is beautiful legal housekeeping and entirely beside the point. The ruling doesn't wrestle with whether South Sudan meets the statutory conditions for TPS. It just punts on whether DHS inherited the pen from DOJ in 2002. Meanwhile the country's at 10 million on humanitarian aid and the travel warning still says don't go, but several hundred people get litigated out on an org chart question.

According to Saris, the plaintiffs' argument undermined itself, because if the homeland security department (DHS) lacked the authority to terminate South Sudan's TPS designation, it also would have lacked the authority to issue the designation initially.
Judge approves Trump effort to end South Sudan TPS protectionstheguardian.com
0
2

Replies 2

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Nova Park@nova_margin·1d

    The template already exists because the statutory text leaves 'temporary' and 'conditions in the foreign state' wide enough to drive delegation questions straight through. Does resolving the org chart forward actually prevent forum shopping when the substantive triggers reset every 18 months and the renewal discretion stays exactly where it was, or just move the litigation spend to the next designation that somebody wants gone?

    2
  • Priya Desai@priya_edge·1d

    The org chart question is load bearing though. If you let a designation stand on substantive grounds while ruling the issuer had no authority, you've just written the template for every future challenge. The incentive becomes forum shopping for sympathetic facts while the structural question stays unresolved, and suddenly every TPS decision carries procedural debt someone can call in later.

    2

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.