The media is often quick to loudly and repeatedly trumpet the news when the federal courts rule against aspects of President Donald Trump's policy agenda, but they are far less enthusiastic about reporting on higher court decisions that allow for or uphold those challenged policies.

Such was the case on Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to pause a lower court's ruling to block the Trump administration's revocation of the Temporary Protected Status that had been extended to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals under the prior administration, Breitbart reported.

That means the Trump administration can proceed with its plans to revoke TPS for upwards of 350,000 Venezuelans while the legal challenge against that policy change continues, which further means those Venezuelans are no longer authorized to work in the U.S. and are at risk of being detained and deported to their home country.

Revoking protected status for Venezuelans

In February, CBS News reported that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that she had revoked one of two special TPS programs for Venezuelans that were implemented or extended under the prior Biden-Harris administration.

That move, which would impact an estimated 350,000 of the roughly 600,000 Venezuelans granted the temporary protections, was swiftly challenged in court, and San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, ruled in March to indefinitely postpone the implementation of that policy change.

The Trump administration appealed Chen's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but that appellate panel declined a request to pause the lower court's order while the appeal was considered, which prompted the administration to file an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.

Lower court's postponement paused by justices

According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled 8-1 to impose a stay on Judge Chen's ordered postponement of Sec. Noem's revocation of the TPS program for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals.

The one-page unsigned order stated: "The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 31, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1766, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought."

"Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court," the order continued.

"This order is without prejudice to any challenge to Secretary Noem's February 3, 2025 vacatur notice insofar as it purports to invalidate EADs, Forms I-797, Notices of Action, and Forms I-94 issued with October 2, 2026 expiration dates. See 8 U. S. C. §1254a(d)(3)," the order added. "Justice Jackson would deny the application."

Reactions to the ruling

The Supreme Court's ruling means that the Trump administration can move forward with its efforts to roll back the TPS programs that were implemented or expanded under the Biden-Harris administration while the litigation against that change continues among the lower courts.

Breitbart reported that Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney representing Venezuelan migrants at risk under the policy change, decried the high court's decision as being the "largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history."

However, the ruling was cheered by Dale Wilcox, the executive director and general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, who observed that all the Supreme Court did was recognize the president's "inherent authority" to exclude certain aliens from having legal status in the U.S.

Wilcox said, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the President’s inherent authority to exclude aliens, and 'inherent' clearly means he may exercise it even when he is not guided by a specific statute."