Under the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been cracking down on migrants. As part of that, they’ve been trying to axe a longstanding program that lets people from conflict-ridden countries have temporary relief on U.S. soil. After a federal court issued an injunction to keep DHS from terminating the program, the U.S. Supreme Court undid that injunction.
Humanitarian Parole and CHNV
Humanitarian parole is a statutory provision that grants the Secretary of Homeland Security discretionary authority to allow certain individuals to enter and remain in the U.S. temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. It does not confer immigration status and is applicable for limited periods. Parole is a special government permit to allow a person to legally enter or remain in the country, without implying permanent immigration status.
The specific type of parole in this case is part of the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program. The Biden Administration initiated the CHNV program in early 2023 as a humanitarian effort to address urgent needs and instability in these countries. It allows nationals from these four countries to apply for a temporary stay in the U.S. for up to two years. The program was developed in response to severe crises such as food shortages, political instability, and violence in these nations, aiming to provide a safe and lawful pathway for individuals seeking refuge.
The CHNV program requires applicants to have a U.S.-based supporter, who can be an individual, business, or organization, that promises to support them during their stay. Supporters must be U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or hold a lawful status. Applicants undergo security vetting and must meet specific criteria. Parole recipients may apply for a work permit, provided it is consistent with the purpose and duration of their authorized stay.
The program has successfully reduced border encounters and facilitated family reunifications, though it faces legal challenges questioning its authority. Parole is generally granted for one year, although it can be extended depending on the circumstances. In the case of the program in question, the permits for these countries were initially granted for two years.
Note that parole is temporary; if a person eventually wishes to obtain permanent residence and then citizenship, they must seek another legal remedy. Another important clarification is that humanitarian parole and CHNV are distinct from TPS (Temporary Protected Status), which has also been in the news lately. TPS also offers protection against deportation, but under different criteria and based on the temporary conditions of the countries of origin. The Supreme Court also recently allowed the Trump administration to continue its plan to cancel TPS for Venezuela.
Trump Terminates Parole
Unsurprisingly, Biden’s CHNV program was not a universal hit. Some states, like Texas, claimed it was a drain on state resources. They went so far as to sue the Biden administration over the program, but a federal judge ruled they lacked standing. After lots of resistance, the Biden administration announced last October that it would not create a re-parole process for those under CHNV.
Upon retaking office this year, President Trump signed an executive order eliminating all categorical parole programs, including CHNV. He didn’t give much reason for it other than citing “abuse of parole authority,” but DHS implemented the measure on March 25. The Trump administration maintains that it has broad authority to grant or cancel these permits and that it made the decision to cancel them for national security reasons.
Immigrant advocacy groups claim that canceling parole puts its beneficiaries between a rock and a hard place, forcing them to remain illegally and be detained, or to leave voluntarily. Several migrant advocacy groups challenged the decision in court, arguing that humanitarian paroles must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and cannot be revoked en masse. They argued that such an unprecedented action violated federal rule-making and endangered those legally working and paying taxes.
Federal Court Intervenes
In April, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani announced she would block the Trump administration's plan to end humanitarian parole. During the hearing, Talwani criticized the government's rationale, stating the decision lacked a reasoned basis and misinterpreted the law. The administration's move to revoke legal protections contradicted its narrative against illegal immigration, affecting individuals who arrived legally with sponsors. The government's lawyer argued that affected individuals could pursue other immigration options, but the judge found this assurance questionable.
Judge Talwani highlighted the dilemma faced by immigrants in the program, who legally reside in the U.S. and now face the choice of fleeing or risking everything if forced to leave. She emphasized that cutting short the parole period requires a justified and lawful basis, which the administration failed to provide. Although Talwani’s ruling would (if temporarily) spare over 500,000 individuals from deportation, it wasn’t long before the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS Reverses
And SCOTUS reinstated Trump’s power. Their decision, taken as an emergency measure, was neither signed nor accompanied by detailed reasoning. However, the majority of the Justices gave the Trump administration the green light to end the permits (at least until litigation on the merits is resolved).
Only two dissented, the liberal justices Jackson and Sotomayor. They argued that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a key requirement for granting a stay. Justice Jackson emphasized that the government's broad claims about immigration and foreign policy prerogatives did not justify immediate termination of parole, especially without identifying specific threats or issues. She highlighted the severe impact on nearly half a million noncitizens who would face family separation, unsafe conditions, and loss of legal status if the stay were granted. In short, the dissenting justices criticized the Court for undervaluing the harm to these individuals and for allowing the government to upend their lives without a thorough legal review—ultimately causing unnecessary human suffering before resolving the legal questions at stake.
Impact of the SCOTUS Ruling
The Supreme Court's decision does not resolve the merits, which will continue to be litigating in lower courts. However, it does allow the government to act while the judicial process continues, and people on CNHV parole are at risk of immediate deportation. The recent decision will effectively allow the federal government to initiate deportation proceedings against people in the CHNV program. If you are one of them, consult with an immigration attorney to explore other immigration relief alternatives that may apply to your particular situation.
Related Resources:
- Can Children Stay in the U.S. If Their Parents Are Deported? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- How to Fight Wrongful Deportation (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Immigration Lawyers Told to Self-Deport (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
