We agree with the district court that CASA, Inc. has stated a plausible claim for relief with regard to the alleged “preordained” decision to terminate temporary protected status (TPS) forAfghanistan and Cameroon, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of CASA, Inc. At this procedural posture, however, there is insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement of agency action pending appeal. We urge the district court to move expeditiously to minimize the uncertainty that will likely result from protracted litigation. Nothing in this Order should be construed to opine on whether a postponement of agency action maybe warranted as this case proceeds.Finally, we emphasize that many members of CASA, Inc. affected by the termination of TPS designations of Afghanistan and Cameroon may be eligible for relief through applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection in accordance with the Convention Against Torture. As the government acknowledges in its response brief, those remedies remain available and CASA, Inc.’s members may seek them.
In other words, the injunction is there to remedy a harm that has yet to be initiated. Maybe during litigation something bad will happen--then slam the injunction into place. Don't draw out litigation--that might make the harm worse. Moreover, some of those possibly affected have other options.
In other words, instead of, "We think it's wrong so we're gonna do what we wanna do," they actually nod at court procedures and the law as they signal the proper virtue and sensitivity.
= new reply since forum marked as read