Sasha aka Sauchi
LightNews LightNews
banner
akchick.bsky.social
Sasha aka Sauchi
@akchick.bsky.social
2.2K followers 3.2K following 7.8K posts
@AlaskaChick on Spoutible @akchick on BlueSky @alaskachick on Mastodon #UglyDogs #AAMTFirefighter #LabradorRetrievers #Cycling #Alaska #ConnorPup #SamPup 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ She/Her
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Sasha aka Sauchi
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Jumping back to the beginning, Judge Reyes does a good job in the Background section of explaining exactly what TPS is, and what it isn't.

I see a LOT of bad info about TPS on this site. Read this to learn the basics; the what and why. She lays it out well in this excerpt.
I. BACKGROUND A. The TPS Statute Before Congress passed the TPS Statute, the Executive Branch handled nationality-based temporary protection through an “ad hoc framework for providing relief to nationals of certain designated countries.” Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem (NTPSA III), 150 F.4th 1000, 1010 (9th Cir. 2025). 5 This led to haphazard regulations and procedures, resulting in discretionary temporary stays that left recipients uncertain of their immigration status. In 1990, Congress stepped in to replace chaos with structure by enacting the TPS statute, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. Congress wanted “a system of temporary status that was predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics.” NTPSA III, 150 F.4th at 1008. So, it gave first the Attorney General and then the DHS Secretary, see 6 U.S.C. § 557, responsibility for the program but prescribed the relevant criteria and applicable process. It specified the kind of country conditions severe enough to warrant a designation under the statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(1). It prescribed the specific time frame for any such designation. Id. § 1254a(b)(2). And it prescribed with specificity the process for periodic review of a TPS designation, which would culminate in either termination or extension of such designation. Id. § 1254a(b)(3). Before designating a country for TPS, the DHS Secretary must “consult[] with appropriate agencies.” Id. § 1254a(b)(1). And she must find one of three circumstances: that (1) “there is an ongoing armed conflict within the [foreign] state” such that “requiring the return” of nationals “would pose a serious threat to their personal safety”; (2) there has been an “environmental disaster in the state resulting in a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in the area affected” and the foreign state is both “unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return” of nationals and “has requested [temporary protected status] designation”; or (3) “there exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent [its nationals] from returning to the state in safety, unless the [Secretary] finds that permitting” that country’s nationals “to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.” Id. § 1254a(b)(1)(A)–(C). A country’s TPS designation does not automatically mean its citizens receive TPS. A foreign national is eligible for TPS only if she meets several criteria, including being otherwise admissible and registering for TPS within a specific time frame. Id. § 1254a(c); 8 C.F.R. § 244.2. In addition, a non-citizen waives eligibility for TPS if, among other things, she has been convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B). All initial TPS designations last six to eighteen months. Id. § 1254a(b)(2). Before the expiration of a designation, the statute mandates that the Secretary—again, “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government”—“review the conditions in the foreign state” and “determine whether the conditions for such designation . . . continue to be met.” Id. § 1254(a)(b)(3)(A). Following this review, the Secretary determines whether to redesignate, extend, or terminate TPS for the country. Extension is the default—the designation “shall be extended” unless the Secretary affirmatively determines that conditions are “no longer me[t].” Id. § 1254a(b)(3)(C). And Congress did not cap how many times the Secretary can extend the designation. Nor did it set a maximum number of years an individual can hold TPS. The statutory design is straightforward: TPS exists because threats to life exist; when the threat persists, so should TPS protection, unless the Secretary articulates a well-reasoned and well-supported national interest to the contrary.
February 3, 2026 at 1:22 AM
Reposted by Sasha aka Sauchi
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
At the conclusion of her introduction Judge Reyes emphasizes what's really at stake here:

"Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight."
Finally, the balance of equities and public interest favor a stay. The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste. Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our healthcare system. Her answer? Turn the insured into the uninsured. This approach is many things—in the public interest is not one of them. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. 81.
February 3, 2026 at 1:07 AM
Reposted by Sasha aka Sauchi
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Judge Reyes begins by explaining who the plaintiffs are: not "killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies" as Kristi Noem suggested.

They are a neuroscientist, a software engineer, a laboratory assistant, a registered nurse, and an economics major. All were facing deportation.
Plaintiffs are five Haitian TPS holders. They are not, it emerges, “killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.” They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease, Dkt. 90 (Second Am. Compl. (SAC)) ¶ 1; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank, id. ¶ 2; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department, id. ¶ 3; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major, id. ¶ 4; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse, id. ¶ 5. They claim that Secretary Noem’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Government counters that the Court does not have jurisdiction, and, in any case, the Secretary did not violate the law.
February 3, 2026 at 12:54 AM
Reposted by Sasha aka Sauchi
kdneedles.bsky.social
Where did the $7 million come from? How many very large bulk ticket purchases were there? I remember DON Jr's book reaching "best seller" status based on $100,000 purchase by the RNC. Who did Trump lean on to buy up the tickets to get to $7 million?
February 2, 2026 at 10:08 PM
akchick.bsky.social
Yup
February 1, 2026 at 12:07 AM
akchick.bsky.social
We need to stop doggy aging, PEET!
February 1, 2026 at 12:07 AM
akchick.bsky.social
I wish I could stop time!
February 1, 2026 at 12:06 AM
akchick.bsky.social
Oh I have zero doubt that is what she is doing. I swear if border collies and cattle dogs could assume human form, they’d find a cure for cancer!
February 1, 2026 at 12:05 AM
akchick.bsky.social
I’ll bet it was @dwaynefuhlhage.bsky.social
January 31, 2026 at 11:56 PM
Reposted by Sasha aka Sauchi
aliciainwonderland.bsky.social
He’s on bluesky @batmanofsanjose.bsky.social
January 29, 2026 at 7:34 AM
Reposted by Sasha aka Sauchi
readcraftcoffee.bsky.social
“As of right now, I stand in front of a council of cowards,” he said. “And if you do not act, you’re not just cowards. You are traitors.”
💯👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
January 29, 2026 at 1:38 AM