Haitian

Prosecutors charge Florida served as central hub in 2021 assassination of Moise, which sparked ongoing political crisis.

Four people have been convicted in the United States in connection with the 2021 assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise.

Arcangel Pretel Ortiz, Antonio Intriago, Walter Veintemilla and James Solages were found guilty on Friday of conspiring to kill or kidnap Moise, whose assassination left a political vacuum in the Caribbean nation that has compounded overlapping security and humanitarian crises.

They were also convicted of providing material support for the plot in violation of US law. All four face possible life sentences.

US prosecutors have said that the south of Florida, the closest US state to Haiti, served as a central hub for planning and funding Moise’s assassination.

During the trial, which began nearly two months ago, the defence argued that the defendants were scapegoats.

They claimed they had instead been involved in a plan to serve Moise an arrest warrant, amid a dispute about whether the president had overstayed his term.

They further maintained that Colombian mercenaries involved in the assassination were meant to accompany Haitian police to execute the warrant, but that Moise was killed by his own security forces before they arrived.

“This is a Haitian plot, and it is ⁠a Haitian conspiracy,” defence lawyer Emmanuel Perez said, as reported by the Miami Herald.

US prosecutors, in turn, charged that the men initially sought to remove and replace Moise, but the plan eventually escalated to assassination.

A fifth defendant, Christian Emmanuel Sanon, a Haitian-born doctor who allegedly wanted to be named president after Moise was killed, was set to be tried at a later date due to health issues.

Eight other individuals accepted plea deals as part of the US investigation.

No national elections have been held in Haiti since Moise’s assassination, although a provisional council was appointed in September 2024 to organise new polls.

The council has since been replaced by US-backed Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aime, who has said elections will be held by the end of the year.

The UN has said a stable government is essential to restoring order in Haiti, which has been beset by a series of natural disasters and rising violence, with criminal gangs controlling large swaths of territory.

At least 8,100 gang killings were documented in 2025, with insecurity displacing about 1.5 million people, according to the UN.

WASHINGTON. April 29 (UPI) — Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot left Haiti in 2010 after a deadly earthquake hit the island nation. As hundreds of thousands of Haitians died in the catastrophe, Miot fled to the United States, where he was granted temporary protected status, a short-term visa program.

Miot, 33, has lived in the States ever since and now researches Alzheimer’s disease in California as a doctoral candidate.

But last year, the Trump administration attempted to revoke his status and send him back to Haiti, along with all other Haitians who had been granted temporary protected status.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Miot’s case, along with a similar case that affects Syrian nationals living under temporary protected status. These legal battles, Trump vs. Miot and Mullin vs. Doe, could decide the future of some 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians living in the United States.

What is TPS?

Temporary protected status began in 1990, enacted as a way to provide foreign nationals relief from war, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Those with temporary protected status are granted legal status for up to 18 month periods, which can be extended based on an evaluation of the safety conditions in the countries they have left behind.

Currently 1.3 million people in the United States — from 17 countries — rely on temporary protected status. The Trump administration has attempted to terminate that status for those from 13 of those nations in the last year, including Afghanistan, Venezuela, South Sudan and Nicaragua.

Lower courts have blocked many of these terminations, deeming them unlawful, and immigrants under temporary protected status have remained in a state of limbo since. The results of these cases could set a legal precedent that would allow the termination of temporary protected status for citizens from these countries, with minimal oversight.

Two questions

Central to Wednesday’s debate were two questions: First, did then Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem follow correct procedure when deciding it would be safe to send people back to Haiti and Syria? Second, did the judicial branch have the legal right to interfere in the secretary’s decisions on temporary protected status?

Noem was criticized for not sufficiently consulting other state agencies when evaluating Haiti and Syria’s safety conditions. She was accused of violating the Administrative Procedures Act. Some Democratic-appointed Justices highlighted brief email exchanges Noem made with the State Department that led her to terminate Haiti and Syria’s status.

In the case of Haiti, she wrote last September to the State Department in an email, “Can you advise on State’s views on the matter?” The State Department simply replied, “State believes there would be no foreign policy concerns with respect to a change in the TPS status of Haiti.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Wednesday questioned whether a “meaningful exchange” of information was made and whether Noem made any effort to actually evaluate the nation’s safety conditions, which is the basis of how temporary protected status is granted.

The government’s attorney, Solicitor General John Sauer, argued that minimal oversight was required of the DHS secretary in these decisions. But Jackson took issue with that, saying it would mean that Noem “can basically do whatever she wants.”

Sauer also vehemently argued that the DHS secretary’s actions should not even be open to judicial review, citing a law that states judges cannot interfere in “any determination with respect to the designation, or termination or extension,” of temporary protected status.

However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded that while the courts can’t challenge the secretary’s ultimate decision, they can question whether the procedures taken to come to those decisions fall within the law.

The immigrants’ attorney, Sotomayor and Jackson all later grilled Sauer on whether the Trump administration’s terminations were racially discriminatory.

Sotomayor and Jackson referenced Trump’s previous hostile rhetoric toward both communities. The justices repeatedly referenced one particular post on Truth Social in which Trump said that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.”

Sotomayor said Trump’s statement showed that “discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Immigrant advocates watched the case closely.

“Certainly the goal of this Trump administration is to make people… immediately vulnerable,” Lucas Guttentag, a Stanford law professor who started the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in an interview.

He said this was part of a much larger campaign to “de-legalize” lawful immigrants and potentially “eviscerate the immigration and asylum protection system covered in this country for decades and generations.”

However, Ira Mehlman, the media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said that many of the immigrants living under temporary protected status had been here far too long.

He said many Haitians arrived 16 years ago. “By no reasonable assessment of the law or English language could you consider that time frame temporary,” he said in an interview.

He added that refugees from many countries, including Haiti and Syria, received temporary protected status because of natural disasters or civil wars that have already ended. So the reason to keep them in the United States has also ended.

“None of them were the Garden of Eden before the earthquake or hurricane … and they’re probably never going to be,” he added.

Kavanaugh echoed this sentiment, saying “The whole thing was the Assad regime was 53 years of brutal treatment and repression. It’s gone.”

Return to literally nothing

Liana Zogbi, a spokesperson from the non-profit Syrian Forum USA, painted a different picture. She said that Syrians would be “returning to literally nothing” should the Supreme Court rule in the government’s favor and Syrians be sent home.

“The majority of the country has been destroyed physically,” she said, explaining that schools, hospitals and even roads are still being rebuilt.

The State Department currently advises U.S. citizens not to travel to Syria “for any reason due to the risk of terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, hostage-taking, crime and armed conflict.”

Haiti is under a similar travel advisory from the State Department, which cites “crime, terrorism, unrest and limited healthcare.” Zogbi said the government would be contradicting itself were it to rule these countries safe for its nationals’ return but not safe enough for U.S. citizens to visit.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants await a decision by the court, which is expected before July.

“Not only does it bring back up … the kind of trauma around instability and destabilizing their lives,” Zogbi said. “They [TPS holders] never know what can happen and how fast they have to leave. They constantly have to make plan A, B, C and D to just kind of prepare for any outcome of a situation.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded ready Wednesday to rule that the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that has been granted to more than 1.3 million immigrants from troubled countries.

Congress in 1990 authorized Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for noncitizens who could not safely return home because their native country was wracked by war, violence or natural disasters. If those people passed a strict background check, they could stay and work legally in this country.

But President Trump came to office believing too many immigrants had been granted permission to enter and stay indefinitely.

Last year, his Department of Homeland Security moved to cancel the temporary humanitarian protection for immigrants from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Honduras and Nicaragua. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians were consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices heard Wednesday.

Immigrant-rights advocates challenged those decisions as political and unjustified, and they won orders from federal judges that blocked the cancellations.

But Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing the judges had overstepped their authority. They pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that bars “judicial review” of the government’s decision to end temporary protection for a particular country.

The justices ruled for the administration and set aside the lower court rulings in a series of 6-3 orders.

Faced with criticism over its brief and unexplained orders, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the TPS issue on the last day of oral arguments for this term.

But the ideological divide appeared to be unchanged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Congress had prohibited “judicial micromanagement” of these decisions, and none of six conservatives disagreed.

UCLA law professor Ahilan T. Arulanantham, representing several thousand Syrians, said the Homeland Security secretary had failed to consult the State Department, which says it is unsafe to travel there.

He said the government “reads the statute like it’s a blank check … to give the secretary the power to expel people who have done nothing wrong.”

Chicago attorney Geoffrey Pipoply, representing more than 350,000 Haitians, said the cancellations were driven by “the president’s racial animus toward non-white immigrants.”

The court’s three liberals argued the administration failed to follow the procedural steps required under the law. But that argument failed to gain traction.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her husband adopted two children from Haiti who are citizens. Like most of the conservatives, she asked few questions during the argument.

WASHINGTON — In a rare bipartisan moment, the House passed legislation Thursday that would extend temporary protections for Haitian immigrants, a long-shot effort fighting back against President Trump’s attempts to end the program.

The bill, pushed forward by House Democrats with a group of Republicans over the objections of the GOP leadership, would require a three-year extension of temporary protected status for Haitians by the Trump administration. That would allow hundreds of thousands of qualifying immigrants to remain in the United States without fear of deportation.

The vote was 224-204, drawing applause in the chamber. But it faces uncertainty in the Senate, and the Republican president would almost certainly seek to veto it.

“I know firsthand how important our Haitian neighbors are to our communities, to our civic life, to our culture, to our workforce, to our economy,” said Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, who is co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus and represents one of the largest Haitian communities in the country.

During the debate, she recounted the number of Haitian immigrants working in healthcare, housing construction and other industries. Haitians with temporary legal status “are not the problem, quite the contrary, they are part of the solution,” she said.

Pressley has said deporting Haitians back to the troubled Caribbean country would be a “death sentence,” given the effects of natural disasters and gang violence. “Congress can do the right thing,” she said.

Ten Republicans, many from districts with large numbers of Haitian residents, joined all Democrats and one independent in voting for passage.

Congress tries to act before the Supreme Court does

The effort to help 350,000 Haitians living lawfully in the United States comes as the administration is working to end the temporary legal status for several groups, exposing them to deportation.

In less than two weeks, the Supreme Court is prepared to consider a fast-track case that would end the protected status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants in a challenge widely seen as threatening the broader program. The administration filed emergency appeals after lower courts stopped the immediate end of the program.

It is part of the administration’s efforts to strip certain immigrant groups of legal status as the White House works to fulfill Trump’s campaign promise of conducting the largest mass deportation operation in history. Some 1.3 million people fleeing countries around the world have been granted temporary protected status in the U.S.

The protections for Haiti, first approved after a devastating 2010 earthquake, have been extended multiple times. The State Department warns Americans not to travel to Haiti “due to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest.”

Guerline Jozef, executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an advocacy organization, fought back tears as she described the fear of deportations coursing through the community.

“We are asking, where will you be? On the right side of history?” she said at a news conference outside the Capitol. “Or continuing to cause trauma to people who are asking for nothing other than safety and protection?”

Trump has described migrants from poorer countries in vulgar terms, and he has falsely accused Haitian migrants in Ohio of eating their neighbors’ cats and dogs.

The conservative majority court has allowed the end of temporary legal status for a total of 600,000 people from Venezuela while lawsuits play out, leaving them to face potential deportation.

Lawmakers debate whether to help Haitians or stick with Trump

Rep. Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.) whose district includes Long Island’s Haitian community, said she promised constituents she would work to protect their status. She introduced the legislation with Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York as soon as she took office last year.

“It’s cruel to expect Haitians to be forced to return to these deadly, dangerous conditions,” she said at a news conference. “Human lives are at risk.”

Lawler said there are differences of opinion on immigration policy, but that Haitian immigrants have become vital to his community and forcing them out would be unjust and unwise.

“They are small business owners, they are nurses, they are caregivers, they participate in our economy and take care of American citizens,” he said. “Congress has a responsibility to act.”

But Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) decried the number of immigrants, including Haitians, who have entered the U.S., and cited Democratic efforts to halt funding for enforcement and deportation efforts.

“Make temporary permanent,” he said, “that’s their plan.”

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) said the program was “backdoor amnesty” for foreigners.

To Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), the temporary status first granted under the Obama administration has become “an open-ended invitation” for immigrants to enter the country, including some illegally, and remain.

“The Trump administration has heeded the cries of the American people,” he said.

Using a discharge petition to force votes

The vote was the latest effort by House Democrats to maneuver past the Republican majority using a discharge petition — once a rare tool, but now used increasingly to form bipartisan coalitions.

The discharge petition process forces the bill to the House floor for consideration, powering past House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and GOP leaders. It was used to help pass legislation that required the Justice Department to release the files of the sex trafficking investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.

Republicans hold a slim majority in the House and are typically able to swat back such efforts from Democrats. But Democrats and Republicans have formed bipartisan alliances to reach the majority needed on the discharge petitions.

Pressley’s effort to discharge the bill won support from four Republicans on the initial petition, and several more once it came to the floor vote.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.