Big from Supreme Court today -- first day of its 2026-2027 term. When the Court decided the Temporary Protective Status cases at the end of last term, those cases involved only Syria and Haiti. Other TPS designations have been ended by the Trump Administration, but the Court did not take up lower court decisions for review -- only the cases involving Syria and Haiti. A very complicated and long-standing case -- the first one brought if I am not mistaken -- out of the Ninth Circuit involved the largest group covered TPS -- Venezuelans. An Obama appointed District Judge in San Fran -- former ACLU attorney Edward Chen -- has issued three different decisions finding the termination of TPS by Sec. Noem to have been unlawful, and invalidating her decisions. The Ninth Circuit twice refused to stay the lower court decisions, and Judge Chen ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, blocking the ending of TPS by Noem. The Ninth Circuit upheld his ruling, and the Trump Admin. appealed to SCOTUS. This was the most significant case NOT decided by SCOTUS last June because it was in a slightly different procedural posture, and Judge Chen's ruling was on different legal grounds that the two cases the Court did decide. But the Venezuela case involved the most aliens covered by TPS. This morning the Court accepted the Government's Petition, reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding Judge Chen, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings in consideration of its decision in the Syria and Haiti cases. This means the Court is done with TPS -- it's not going to consider any of the other challenges involving other countries that were still pending after it reversed the lower courts in the Syria and Haiti cases. Clean sweep by the Trump Administration on this very important question because one key factor in the Syria and Haiti case was the Court's finding that district courts where the cases all began lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims. From the Court: "A provision of the TPS statute, 8 U. S. C. §1254a(b)(5)(A), provides: “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.” This text is clear, and its plain meaning is very broad." Expect to see these same words repeated in other immigration cases in the Court's new term as more of the lawfare on immigration cases makes its way to SCOTUS.