In a significant ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal that may enable former President Trump to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants who entered the United States under a two-year parole program established by the Biden administration.
The ruling, passed by a majority of the justices over two dissents, set aside previous decisions made by judges in Boston who had blocked the repeal of the parole policy.
This 2023 policy allowed individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to seek entry and work authorization, contingent on having a financial sponsor and passing background checks.
By the time Biden left office, approximately 530,000 individuals from these countries had benefitted from this parole program.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Jackson asserting that the court mishandled the situation and should have kept the case on hold pending appeals.
Although this unsigned order is not a final verdict, it indicates a strong likelihood that Trump’s order will eventually be upheld, as the majority would not have lifted the lower court’s ruling if they believed it to be correct.
Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin heralded the Supreme Court’s decision as a victory for American citizens, emphasizing the need to end the CHNV parole programs.
She argued that discontinuing this program would reinforce public safety and uphold the ‘America First’ principle.
This ruling marked the second occasion within two weeks that the Supreme Court reinforced Trump’s authority to rescind a significant Biden-era immigration policy designed to provide temporary legal status to some migrants.
The first policy overturned by the Supreme Court concerning roughly 350,000 Venezuelans currently residing in the U.S. granted them temporary protected status amid fears they could be sent back to their home country.
Under the parole policy, up to 30,000 migrants monthly from the aforementioned four countries could enter the U.S. with temporary legal protections.
The affirmative intent behind Biden’s administration was to alleviate illegal border crossings and create a lawful, safe pathway for systematically screened migrants.
This wide-reaching policy derived from a seemingly benign provision of the immigration laws, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to “parole into the United States temporarily … on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons any alien” seeking admission.
However, advocates for immigrants expressed grave concerns that the Supreme Court’s decision could result in devastating impacts, unleashing “widespread chaos” in affected communities.
Karen Tumlin, founder and director of Justice Action Center, claimed that the ruling would effectively sanction deportation orders for an estimated 500,000 people, marking the largest de-legalization event in the modern era.
Upon taking office, Trump had ordered an end to “all categorical parole programs.”
In late March, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of parole protections would take effect within 30 days.
However, in response to a case brought before them, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani had previously blocked the DHS’s “categorical” cessation of the parole authority, arguing that the law mandates that the government grants parole on a “case-by-case basis,” and that suggests revocation must occur in the same manner.
In early May, the 1st Circuit Court reinforced this decision in a unanimous ruling, finding that the “categorical termination” of parole appeared to be unlawful.
Just three days later, Solicitor General D. John Sauer submitted another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming the judge had exceeded her authority.
He argued that the parole authority is purely discretionary and under the control of the DHS secretary, declaring that the law prohibits judicial review of such decisions.
According to Sauer, while the Biden administration “granted parole categorically to aliens,” the Boston judges had obstructed the new policy due to its categorical nature.
He contended that these judges had unjustifiably disrupted critical immigration policies that were deliberately designed to deter illegal entries, thus undermining core Executive Branch prerogatives and reversing democratically sanctioned policies that had been prominent in the recent elections.
On the other hand, advocates for immigrant rights appealed to the court for restraint, arguing that the administration’s approval would inflict extensive human suffering on affected individuals.
They emphasized that the migrants had sought entry into the U.S. with federal government permission, completing individual applications through a financial sponsor, passing security and other checks, and receiving approval to travel at no cost to the government to request parole.
The advocates acknowledged some individuals had been present for nearly two years, while others had only recently arrived.
In response, Sauer maintained that the migrants had no legitimate grounds for complaint, as they accepted parole with a clear understanding of its temporary, discretionary, and revocable nature.
The Biden administration initially began permitting temporary entry to Venezuelans in late 2022 and subsequently broadened this approach to include individuals from the other three countries shortly thereafter.
In October of the previous year, the administration informed that no renewals of parole would be granted, instructing these immigrants to seek alternative legal avenues such as asylum or temporary protected status.
The exact number of individuals remaining solely protected by the parole status eligible for deportation remains uncertain.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the administration intends to pursue deportation for many or most of these immigrants.
Those under the parole program facing recent challenges had encountered obstacles in adjusting their legal status.
In a memo dated February 14, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced an administrative hold on all pending benefit requests from individuals under the parole program covering Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, as well as another program aimed at Ukrainians and family reunification.
The memo detailed a need for the federal agency to implement “additional vetting flags” to detect fraud, public safety, or national security concerns.
Nonetheless, a federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the Trump administration to lift the hold just this week.
According to the DHS memo, the government does retain the discretion to extend parole for some individuals on a case-by-case basis.
However, Trump’s legal team asserted that migrants who have been in the country for less than two years could face deportation without a hearing under the “expedited removal” provisions of immigration laws.
Expert opinions voiced concerns over the government’s position as Talia Inlender, deputy director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law, argued that individuals should not be stripped of legally granted status without appropriate justification or notification.
Inlender, who had defended this program in a 2023 challenge, anticipated rapid legal challenges against the Trump administration’s expedited removal approach.
She highlighted the critical stakes involved for countless lives and pointed out that these individuals had followed the proper legal channels, undergone vetting, and had the rug pulled out from under them, a situation she believes is fundamentally contrary to the principles of justice that define the nation.
image source from：https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-05-30/supreme-court-trump-may-end-legal-parole-532-000-migrants-cuba-haiti-nicaragua-venezuela
