SCOTUS Rules On Migrants Parole Program Policy Created By Trump
In a sweeping decision that underscores a new chapter in the national immigration battle, the U.S. Supreme Court has lifted an injunction that blocked the Trump administration from revoking legal status for more than half a million migrants who entered the country under the Biden-era CHNV program. The ruling, a 5-4 decision with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, gives the administration the green light to proceed with stripping legal protections from migrants originating from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
This development is a high-stakes victory for the Trump White House, which has aggressively sought to reassert control over immigration policy and unwind many of the humanitarian measures instituted during the previous administration.
At the core of the dispute is the CHNV parole initiative, a program crafted to reduce unlawful border crossings by providing a legal avenue for up to 30,000 vetted individuals per month to enter the U.S. for temporary residence, contingent on sponsorship and background checks.
The Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration (8-1 with Jackson dissenting) to stay an injunction from the lower court blocking the March cancellation of parole for migrants under the Biden administration’s CHNV program. pic.twitter.com/DTexbjTS4h
— AG (@AGHamilton29) May 19, 2025
That controlled system, however, was derided by Trump officials as a loophole. In April, the administration moved swiftly to rescind the status of those migrants, warning that they must leave voluntarily or face arrest and deportation. A federal judge—Indira Talwani of Massachusetts—intervened, arguing that the administration’s blanket revocation failed to meet the legal threshold of individualized review.
Judge Talwani’s opinion echoed concerns about due process and adherence to the rule of law: “Early termination, without any case-by-case justification, of legal status for noncitizens who have complied with DHS programs and entered the country lawfully undermines the rule of law.”
Despite her ruling, the Trump administration sought emergency intervention from the nation’s highest court. In its appeal, the White House asserted that Talwani’s injunction had “nullified one of the Administration’s most consequential immigration policy decisions,” and argued that continued legal presence for CHNV migrants was “contrary to U.S. interests.”
Now, with the injunction lifted, federal authorities have the judicial backing to begin terminating the legal protections granted under CHNV, even as broader litigation continues to unfold. For the affected migrants, the legal landscape is abruptly shifting from promise to peril.
Justice Jackson’s lone dissent, though not yet published in full, is expected to amplify growing concerns about procedural fairness and the humanitarian implications of mass deportation without individualized review.