The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday let President Donald Trump’s administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president’s drive to step up deportations.
The court put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order halting the administration’s move to end the immigration “parole” granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden. That potentially exposes many of them to rapid removal while the case plays out in lower courts.
As with many of the court’s orders issued in an emergency fashion, the decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the court’s three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented.
The outcome, Jackson wrote, “undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million non-citizens while their legal claims are pending.”
Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” allowing recipients to live and work in the United States.
Government seeks ‘expedited removal’
Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration’s approach to deter illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexican border.
Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called “expedited removal.”
The Trump administration deported more than 200 immigrants by invoking the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime measure — alleging they were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Andrew Chang explains how Trump is interpreting the language of the 1798 law in order to avoid the standard immigration court system, and why experts say it’s a slippery slope.
The case is one of many that Trump’s administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation’s highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out.
In a bid to reduce illegal border crossings, Biden starting in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the United States by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor.
Biden expanded that process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those nationalities.
‘Devastating’ decision: plaintiff attorney
The plaintiffs, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies.
GuerlineJozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, one of the plaintiffs, expressed dismay at Friday’s decision.
“Once again, the Trump administration blatantly proves their disregard for the lives of those truly in need of protection by taking away their status and rendering them undocumented,” Jozef said.
“I cannot overstate how devastating this is: the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces and their communities,” added Karen Tumlin, director of Justice Action Center, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs.
Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program’s blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge’s decision on hold.
In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that Talwani’s order had upended “critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry,” effectively “undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election” that returned Trump to the presidency.
Trump campaigned on a promise to enact the largest wave of deportations seen in the U.S. in decades, though it’s not clear how his administration would do so, operationally.Â
The U.S. in certain cases does not have expatriation agreements with the countries of origin for some migrants, but the current administration has made moves to send some migrants to entirely different nations, including some that have been riven with conflict. In addition, lawyers for some deportees have asserted in court that they were deprived of any notice of their removal or ability to challenge the decisions.
The plaintiffs in this case told the Supreme Court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief.
They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation “to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death.
