block

BOSTON — A federal judge said Friday that she expects to temporarily block efforts by the Trump administration to end a program that offered temporary legal protections for more than 10,000 family members of citizens and green card holders.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said at a hearing that she planned to issue a temporary restraining order but did not say when it would be issued. This case is part of a broader effort by the administration to end temporary legal protection for numerous groups and comes just over a week since another judge ruled that hundreds of people from South Sudan may live and work in the United States legally.

“The government, having invited people to apply, is now laying traps between those people and getting the green card,” said Justin Cox, an attorney who works with Justice Action Center and argued the case for the plaintiffs. “That is incredibly inequitable.”

This case involved a program called Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, and affects people from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. Most of them are set to lose their legal protections, which were put in place during the Biden administration, by Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security terminated protections late last year.

The case involves five plaintiffs, but lawyers are seeking to have any ruling cover everyone that is part of the program.

“Although in a temporary status, these parolees did not come temporarily; they came to get a jump-start on their new lives in the United States, typically bringing immediate family members with them,” plaintiffs wrote in their motion. “Since they arrived, FRP parolees have gotten employment authorization documents, jobs, and enrolled their kids in school.”

The government, in its brief and in court, argued that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has the authority to terminate any parole program and gave adequate notice by publishing the termination in the federal registry. It also argued that the program’s termination was necessary on national security grounds because the people had not been property vetted. It also said resources to maintain this program would be better used in other immigration programs.

“Parole can be terminated at any time,” Katie Rose Talley, a lawyer for the government told the court. “That is what is being done. There is nothing unlawful about that.”

Talwani conceded that the government can end the program but she took issue with the way it was done.

The government argued that just announcing in the federal registry it was ending the program was sufficient. But Talwani demanded the government show how it has alerted people through a written notice — a letter or email — that the program was ending.

“I understand why plaintiffs feel like they came here and made all these plans and were going to be here for a very long time,” Talwani said. “I have a group of people who are trying to follow the law. I am saying to you that, we as Americans, the United States needs to.”

Lower courts have largely supported keeping temporary protections for many groups. But in May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million.

The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision came after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case.

The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Israel says it will suspend more than two dozen humanitarian organisations, including Doctors Without Borders, for failing to meet its new rules for aid groups working in the war-ravaged Gaza Strip.

Organisations facing bans starting on Thursday didn’t meet new requirements for sharing information on their staffs, funding and operations, Israeli authorities said.

Other major organisations affected include the Norwegian Refugee Council, CARE International, the International Rescue Committee and divisions of major charities such as Oxfam and Caritas.

Israel accused Doctors Without Borders, known by its French acronym MSF, of failing to clarify the roles of some staff members, alleging they cooperated with Hamas.

“The message is clear: Humanitarian assistance is welcome. The exploitation of humanitarian frameworks for terrorism is not,” Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said.

MSF – one of the largest medical groups operating in Gaza, where the health sector has been targeted and largely destroyed – said Israel’s decision will have a catastrophic impact on its work in the enclave, where it supports about 20 percent of the hospital beds and one-third of births. The organisation also denied Israel’s accusations about its staff.

“MSF would never knowingly employ people engaging in military activity,” it said.

International organisations said Israel’s rules are arbitrary. Israel said 37 groups working in Gaza didn’t have their permits renewed.

‘Appalling conditions’

Aid organisations help with a variety of social services, including food distribution, healthcare, mental health and disability services, and education.

Amjad Shawa from the Palestine NGOs Network said the decision by Israel is part of its ongoing effort  “to deepen the humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.

“The limitations on the humanitarian operations in Gaza are in order to continue their project to push out the Palestinians, deport Gaza. This is one of the things Israel continues doing,” Shawa told Al Jazeera.

Israel’s move comes as at least 10 countries expressed “serious concerns” about a “renewed deterioration of the humanitarian situation” in Gaza, describing it as “catastrophic”.

“As winter draws in civilians in Gaza are facing appalling conditions with heavy rainfall and temperatures dropping,” Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland said in a joint statement.

“1.3 million people still require urgent shelter support. More than half of health facilities are only partially functional and face shortages of essential medical equipment and supplies. The total collapse of sanitation infrastructure has left 740,000 people vulnerable to toxic flooding.”

The countries urged Israel to ensure international NGOs can operate in Gaza in a “sustained and predictable” way and called for the opening of land crossings to boost the flow of humanitarian aid.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the joint statement “false but unsurprising” and “part of a recurring pattern of detached criticism and one-sided demands on Israel while deliberately ignoring the essential requirement ‌of disarming Hamas”.

‘Needs in Gaza are enormous’

Four months ago, more than 100 aid groups accused Israel of obstructing life-saving aid from entering Gaza and called on it to end its “weaponisation of aid” as it refused to allow aid trucks to enter the battered Gaza Strip.

More than 71,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023. Hundreds have died from severe malnutrition and thousands more from preventable diseases because of a lack of medical supplies.

Israel claims it’s upholding the aid commitments laid out in the latest ceasefire, which took effect on October 10, but humanitarian groups dispute Israel’s numbers and say a lot more aid is desperately needed in the devastated enclave of more than two million Palestinians.

Israel changed its registration process for aid groups in March, which included a requirement to submit a list of staff, including Palestinians in Gaza.

Some aid groups said they didn’t submit a list of Palestinian staff for fear those employees would be targeted by Israel.

“It comes from a legal and safety perspective. In Gaza, we saw hundreds of aid workers get killed,” said Shaina Low, communications adviser for the Norwegian Refugee Council.

Desperately needed lifelines

The decision not to renew aid groups’ licences means their offices in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem will close and organisations won’t be able to send international staff or aid into Gaza.

“Despite the ceasefire, the needs in Gaza are enormous, and yet we and dozens of other organisations are and will continue to be blocked from bringing in essential lifesaving assistance,” Low said. “Not being able to send staff into Gaza means all of the workload falls on our exhausted local staff.”

Israel’s decision means the aid groups will have their licences revoked on Thursday and, if they are located in Israel, they will need to leave by March 1, according to the ministry.

This isn’t the first time Israel has tried to crack down on international humanitarian organisations. Throughout the war, it accused the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, of being infiltrated by Hamas and Hamas of using UNRWA’s facilities and taking its aid. The UN has denied that.

In October, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion saying Israel must support UN relief efforts in Gaza, including those conducted by UNRWA.

The court found Israel’s allegations against UNRWA – including that it was complicit in the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel – were unsubstantiated.

The court also said Israel, as the occupying power, must ensure the “basic needs” of the Palestinian population of Gaza are met, “including the supplies essential for survival”, such as food, water, shelter, fuel and medicine.

A number of countries halted funding for UNRWA after Israel’s accusations, jeopardising one of Gaza’s most desperately needed lifelines.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy military forces in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if U.S. military forces were unable to quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” he told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

The Militia Act of 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers said that referred to police and federal agents. But after taking a closer look, the court concluded it referred to the regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell violence.

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the military.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use of the military rather than the standing military to quell domestic disturbances,” they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. soldiers were required to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the President invoked [U.S. law] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard — one in three of the Guard’s total active members — to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

That has proved to be “the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” they said. “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate.

“What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time,” they said.

Thousands protest as EU leaders clash over trade pact farmers fear will flood Europe with cheaper South American goods.

Hundreds of tractors have clogged the streets of Brussels as farmers converged on the Belgian capital to protest against the contentious trade agreement between the European Union and South American nations they say will destroy their livelihoods.

The demonstrations erupted on Thursday as EU leaders gathered for a summit where the fate of the Mercosur deal hung in the balance. More than 150 tractors blocked central Brussels, with an estimated 10,000 protesters expected in the European quarter, according to farm lobby Copa-Cogeca.

It made for a twin-tracked day of febrile tension outside and inside at the EU summit as leaders were perhaps more focused on a vote to determine whether they are able to use nearly $200bn in frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine over the next two years.

Outside the gilded halls on the streets, farmers hurled potatoes and eggs at police, set off fireworks and firecrackers, and brought traffic to a standstill.

Authorities responded with tear gas and water cannon, setting up roadblocks and closing tunnels around the city. One tractor displayed a sign reading: “Why import sugar from the other side of the world when we produce the best right here?”

“We’re here to say no to Mercosur,” Belgian dairy farmer Maxime Mabille said, accusing European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen of trying to “force the deal through” like “Europe has become a dictatorship”.

Protesters fear an influx of cheaper agricultural products from Brazil and neighbouring countries would undercut European producers. Their concerns centre on beef, sugar, rice, honey and soya beans from South American competitors facing less stringent regulations, particularly on pesticides banned in the EU.

“We’ve been protesting since 2024 in France, in Belgium and elsewhere,” said Florian Poncelet of Belgian farm union FJA. “We’d like to be finally listened to.”

France and Italy now lead opposition to the deal, with President Emmanuel Macron declaring that “we are not ready” and the agreement “cannot be signed” in its current form.

France has coordinated with Poland, Belgium, Austria and Ireland to force a postponement, giving critics sufficient votes within the European Council to potentially block the pact.

However, Germany and Spain are pushing hard for approval. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that decisions “must be made now” if the EU wants to “remain credible in global trade policy”, while Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez argued the deal would give Europe “geo-economic and geopolitical weight” against adversaries.

The agreement, 25 years in the making, would create the world’s largest free-trade area covering 780 million people and a quarter of global gross domestic product (GDP).

Supporters say it offers a counterweight to China and would boost European exports of vehicles, machinery and wines amid rising US tariffs.

Despite provisional safeguards negotiated on Wednesday to cap sensitive imports, opposition has intensified. Von der Leyen remains determined to travel to Brazil this weekend to sign the deal, but needs backing from at least two-thirds of EU nations.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva issued an ultimatum on Wednesday, warning that Saturday represents a “now or never” moment, adding that “Brazil won’t make any more agreements while I’m president” if the deal fails.