President Donald Trump has picked up a big win at the U.S. Supreme Court on a key issue driving his presidency.
The court annulled a lower court injunction that was obstructing the president from revoking the protected legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants presently living in the United States.
The ruling was 8–1 in support of the president’s position, with the sole dissent originating from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by former President Joe Biden.
The ruling facilitates the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke Biden-era Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 300,000 Venezuelan migrants residing in the U.S.. It permits the administration to proceed with the immediate deportation of these migrants, as asserted by the administration’s legal representatives.
During his address to the Supreme Court last month, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer asserted that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction.
He stated that “the district court’s reasoning is untenable,” asserting that the program “involves particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch concerning immigration policy.”
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem rescinded Temporary Protected Status in a February memo, with an effective date in April.
On October 3, 2023, Venezuela was again recognized for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) owing to exceptional and temporary circumstances that hinder the safe repatriation of Venezuelan nationals.
Following an assessment of the prevailing situation in the country and consultations with relevant U.S. government agencies, the Secretary of Homeland Security has concluded that Venezuela no longer satisfies the criteria for the 2023 designation.
It has been concluded that allowing the designated Venezuelan nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is against the national interest.
The memo stated, “Consequently, the 2023 TPS designation for Venezuela is being revoked.”
“On March 9, 2021, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas designated Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to his assessment of ‘extraordinary and temporary conditions’ in Venezuela that hindered the safe return of its nationals, asserting that allowing these individuals to remain temporarily in the United States aligns with U.S. national interests,” it stated.
The memo stated, “On September 8, 2022, former Secretary Mayorkas prolonged the Venezuela 2021 TPS designation for 18 months.”
On October 3, 2023, Secretary Mayorkas prolonged the Venezuela 2021 TPS designation for an additional 18 months, expiring on September 10, 2025.
He also designated Venezuela for 18 months, referring to this decision as a ‘redesignation’ (Venezuela 2023 designation), which expires on April 2, 2025, thereby establishing two distinct and concurrent Venezuelan TPS designations. Refer to the Extension and Redesignation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status.
On January 17, 2025, Secretary Mayorkas announced an extension of Venezuela’s TPS status from 2023 for an additional 18 months.
The notification was predicated on Secretary Mayorkas’s assessment on January 10, 2025, that the criteria for the designation remained satisfied. Refer to INA 244(b)(3)(A), (C), and 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A), (C).
In the January 2025 announcement, Secretary Mayorkas neither explicitly extended nor terminated the 2021 designation for Venezuela.
The announcement made it easier for all eligible Venezuelan TPS recipients to apply for TPS by the new deadline of October 2, 2026, regardless of whether they were under the 2021 or 2023 designations, as stated in the DHS memo.
On January 28, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem annulled former Secretary Mayorkas’s decision from January 10, 2025, reinstating the prior status quo.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California suspended Noem’s initiative in March, finding that the depiction of migrants as potential criminals was “unfounded and replete with racism.”
As of late October 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says that more than 527,000 people have been deported (removed) since Trump took office on January 20, 2025.
DHS says there were 1.6 million voluntary leaves out of a total of about 2 million departures.
The agency believes these numbers will continue to increase on a monthly and yearly average with more funding and resources.
A high-ranking Los Angeles politician is facing a growing scandal that could have significant implications for his career and the city’s political landscape. Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price has been hit with additional charges of embezzling public funds and engaging in corrupt practices designed to benefit his family financially.The charges, filed by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, shed light on a troubling pattern of self-dealing that has plagued the career of the Ninth District representative, who has been in office since 2013.Price, a longtime Democratic politician, is accused of using his position to secure multimillion-dollar contracts for entities associated with his wife, Delbra Pettice Richardson, and for directing public funds to various projects that directly benefited his personal financial interests.
The accusations stem from an investigation that revealed Price’s wife’s business, Del Richardson & Associates, was paid over $800,000 by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and LA Metro, while Price was simultaneously voting to approve significant contracts for these agencies.The Los Angeles District Attorney, Nathan Hochman, was clear in his condemnation of Price’s actions. “Embezzling public funds and awarding contracts for your own financial gain is the antithesis of public service,” Hochman remarked.“Our communities expect and deserve better from their public officials.” Hochman’s statement underscores the seriousness of the charges, especially given that Price is an elected official entrusted with making decisions that impact millions of Los Angeles residents.Price, who had previously pleaded not guilty to five counts of embezzlement filed in 2023, is now facing two additional public corruption charges that were brought after further investigation revealed troubling financial dealings. These charges are the latest in a series of legal battles that have rocked Price’s career and reputation.
The initial charges, filed in 2023, included five felony counts of embezzlement, three counts of perjury, and two counts of conflict of interest. These charges stemmed from Price’s involvement with Del Richardson & Associates, a company entirely owned by his wife.Between 2019 and 2021, Price’s wife received more than $150,000 in payments from developers before Price voted to approve their projects, raising serious questions about whether Price was using his political influence for personal gain.In addition to these payments, Price is accused of embezzling approximately $33,800 in city funds to pay for medical benefits for Richardson, who was falsely claimed to be his wife during a period when he was still legally married to Lynn Suzette Price.The misuse of public funds for personal expenses further compounds the severity of the charges against him.However, the most damaging allegations involve the payments made to Del Richardson & Associates by HACLA and LA Metro. Between October 2019 and June 2020, HACLA reportedly paid Price’s wife’s business more than $600,000.During that period, Price voted to approve a $35 million federal grant and supported a $252 million state grant application for HACLA, despite his staff raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.Similarly, between October 2020 and October 2021, LA Metro paid Del Richardson & Associates around $219,500. During this time, Price introduced and voted in favor of a $30 million allocation for LA Metro, again after his staff flagged the conflict of interest.Prosecutors allege that Price’s actions were part of a broader scheme to funnel public funds into projects and businesses connected to him and his family, potentially violating numerous laws and ethical standards.
The charges against Price have drawn widespread attention, as they highlight a disturbing pattern of corruption and self-dealing among public officials.Price has served as the Los Angeles City Councilmember for the Ninth District since 2013, a position that grants him significant influence over city projects and budgets.As a member of the City Council, Price is prohibited from having a financial interest in any project that comes before the body. This conflict of interest rule is designed to ensure that elected officials do not use their positions for personal gain, and the allegations against Price suggest that he may have flagrantly violated this fundamental ethical principle.Beyond his personal financial dealings, Price is also accused of using his influence to steer city resources toward projects with financial ties to himself and his family.For instance, Price is accused of directing more than $2 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds and city lease agreements to a nonprofit organization called Home at Last.This organization was a tenant of the Urban Healthcare Project, where Price served as CEO at the time. The funds, which were meant to support homelessness initiatives, were allegedly misused to benefit Price’s business interests.These actions, if proven true, represent a gross abuse of power and a betrayal of the public trust.The investigation into Price’s activities has been ongoing for months, and the District Attorney’s Office has emphasized its commitment to holding public officials accountable for any unlawful conduct.
The new charges come after a comprehensive investigation by the Public Integrity Division, which uncovered the financial transactions between Price’s wife’s business and key city agencies. The DA’s office has made it clear that corruption at any level of government will not be tolerated in Los Angeles County.In addition to the legal challenges facing Price, the scandal has sparked a wider conversation about corruption and ethical misconduct within the Democratic Party.Price’s case is just one example of the growing number of Democrats embroiled in legal battles over corruption allegations. Across the country, several prominent Democratic lawmakers are facing criminal charges or investigations related to fraud, embezzlement, and other forms of corruption.For example, grand juries in Virginia and Maryland are currently considering criminal indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Senator Adam Schiff.Both politicians are accused of falsifying property records in order to secure preferential loan conditions. These allegations, which are being investigated by Special Attorney Ed Martin, have raised serious concerns about the integrity of high-ranking Democratic officials.If convicted, James and Schiff could face lengthy prison sentences for mortgage fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud.The ongoing investigations into Price and other high-profile Democrats have put the party’s leadership under increased scrutiny. Many observers are questioning the effectiveness of the party’s efforts to address corruption within its ranks, especially given the high-profile nature of the charges.As the legal cases against Price and others unfold, it remains to be seen how the Democratic Party will respond to the growing scandal and what consequences these allegations will have for the political careers of those involved.
For now, Curren Price faces a challenging road ahead as he defends himself against serious charges of corruption and embezzlement. The outcome of his case could have lasting implications not only for his political future but also for the credibility of the Los Angeles City Council and the broader Democratic Party.The growing number of corruption cases involving public officials has underscored the need for greater accountability and transparency in government, particularly at the local and state levels.In the coming months, as the legal process plays out, Price and other embattled Democrats will likely continue to face intense public and political pressure.Whether these scandals will lead to significant reforms within the party or tarnish the reputation of its leaders remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the public is demanding greater accountability from those entrusted with the power to govern and make decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans.
In a political shake-up that few saw coming, two of Texas’ most well-known Democratic lawmakers — Representative Al Green and Representative Jasmine Crockett — have lost their seats in Congress. The double defeat is being hailed as a victory for conservatives and a clear message that Texas voters are demanding change.
For years, Al Green has been a familiar face in Washington, known for his relentless efforts to impeach Donald Trump and his reputation as one of the most liberal voices in the Lone Star State. But after decades in office, voters appeared ready for fresh leadership. His ouster signals the end of an era for Texas Democrats.
Jasmine Crockett, meanwhile, had only recently entered Congress but quickly made national headlines with her fiery speeches, sharp rhetoric, and combative style. While admired by progressives, her critics accused her of prioritizing TV appearances and political theatrics over real solutions for Texas families. That perception may have cost her dearly at the ballot box.
Republicans are celebrating the outcome as proof that Texas is rejecting “woke politics” and shifting toward a more conservative, results-oriented agenda. Supporters argue that this is just the beginning of a broader realignment in traditionally Democratic districts.
For Democrats, however, the back-to-back losses of Green and Crockett raise serious questions about strategy, leadership, and their ability to connect with working-class Texans. With the 2024 elections looming, the party now faces an uphill battle to rebuild trust and regain lost ground in a state that is increasingly hostile to its progressive agenda.