In a significant immigration policy shift, the United States Supreme Court on Friday permitted US President Donald Trump’s administration to terminate a humanitarian parole programme introduced during President Joe Biden’s tenure, affecting over 5,00,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
The apex court’s unsigned order, which saw dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, enables the administration to expedite deportations of individuals who had previously benefited from the parole programme, according to a report by CNN. Although the decision is not final—legal proceedings will continue in lower courts—it marks the second instance this month where the court supported Trump’s stance on revoking temporary legal status for migrants.
US’s Humanitarian Parole Programme
The humanitarian parole programme has its origins in federal immigration laws dating back to the 1950s. During President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration, tens of thousands of Hungarians fleeing Soviet repression post-World War II were granted parole. The provision allows migrants to temporarily live and work in the US for typically two years, though the status is not permanent.
In 2023, the Biden administration had expanded this parole facility to migrants from the four aforementioned nations, contingent on applicants having American sponsors and passing security vetting. The aim was to encourage legal entry into the country rather than illegal crossings. However, Trump, on assuming office, moved swiftly to dismantle the programme through executive action, the report noted.
While federal law grants the Homeland Security Secretary—currently Kristi Noem—wide authority to grant or revoke parole, the legal debate centres on whether this can be done en masse or only through individual review. The Biden administration claims to have conducted at least some degree of individual assessment before approving applicants.
Trump Administration Calls Parole Revocation ‘One Of Most Consequential Immigration Policy Decisions’
Calling the move to revoke parole “one of the most consequential immigration policy decisions” taken by the administration, Trump’s team argued in the Supreme Court that lower court injunctions had disrupted immigration strategies designed to deter illegal entry, undermining executive authority and electoral mandates, as per CNN’s report.
Following a legal challenge from affected migrants, US District Judge Indira Talwani—appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2013—temporarily halted the administration’s attempt to end the programme across the board, insisting on case-by-case review, the report stated. The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld Talwani’s ruling on 5 May. The panel included two judges appointed by President Biden and one by President Obama, who questioned whether Noem possessed the authority to categorically revoke the programme.
The case is part of a broader series of emergency immigration-related appeals reaching the Supreme Court during Trump’s presidency. These include challenges over birthright citizenship and the limits of lower courts in restraining presidential actions. The court has also intervened in matters concerning deportations under historical wartime authorities and previously ordered the return of a Salvadoran national mistakenly deported.
