Summary of Litigation

During the Biden administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented several parole programs, known collectively as the Parole Process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV Parole Program). Their purpose was ostensibly to encourage “lawful, safe, and orderly means of traveling to the United States” for citizens of those countries fleeing humanitarian crises. On March 25, 2025, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register (FRN) announcing that, effective immediately, DHS was terminating the CHNV Parole Program. The FRN announced further that the paroles of individuals granted parole under the CHNV Parole Program would be terminated on April 24, 2025, if their status had not already expired by that date. The notice directed that “[p]arolees without a lawful basis to remain in the United States following this termination of the [CHNV Parole Program] must depart the United States before their parole termination date.” It also indicated the agency’s intention to commence enforcement actions against parolees who did not depart within the period provided. As part of a broader class action lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s actions dismantling a number of Biden-era parole programs, several parolees brought an emergency motion for a stay of the FRN and the individual parole terminations.

On April 14, 2025, a district court judge certified a class of CHNV parolees and stayed implementation of the administration’s FRN, as well as all of the individual parole termination notices sent to grantees via their MyUSCIS accounts. The FRN and notices sent to parolees had purported to categorically terminate all paroles issued under that program. The Trump administration appealed the district court’s decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and requested that the court stay the lower court’s order pending appeal. On May 5, 2025, the First Circuit denied the stay and stated that the administration had failed to show “that the balance of harms and the public interest weigh so heavily in her favor as to warrant a stay of the district court order pending the outcome of this appeal in the absence of a strong showing that the Secretary will prevail.” The government then made an emergency motion for a stay to the Supreme Court, requesting that the Court stay the lower court’s decision pending the appeal.

Supreme Court Decision and Dissent

Unfortunately, on May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the Court’s “shadow docket” granting the government’s requested stay of the district court’s order. The Supreme Court provided no analysis in its decision. Instead, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, castigated the majority for ignoring the reasoned analysis required in cases seeking emergency stay relief. That analysis typically requires the balancing of several factors: whether the applicant for stay will likely succeed on the merits of their case, whether irreparable harm will befall the applicant should the Court deny the stay, and whether the equities and public interest are on their side.

None of these factors were considered by the majority, and in Justice Jackson’s view, the government’s failure to show irreparable harm to the government or public was enough to deny the government’s request for stay. In making this finding, she stated, “For instance, the agency does not identify any specific national-security threat or foreign-policy problem that will result from respecting extant grants of CHNV parole while this case is pending. Moreover, as the government admits, DHS retains the ability to terminate CHNV parole on a case-by-case basis should such a particular need arise, consistent with the District Court’s order.” Furthermore, the balance of equities clearly weighed in favor of allowing the order to stay, Justice Jackson found, given the “tangible, imminent, and significant harm … likely [to] befall” CHNV parolees should the order be stayed.

Impact on Practitioners and CHNV Parolees

Since the Supreme Court’s decision was handed down, DHS indicated in a statement that it was issuing new termination notices and revocations of employment authorization (EAD) to CHNV parolees, “effective immediately.” The statement encourages noncitizens to use the CBP Home app to “self-deport” and promises travel assistance and a $1,000 exit bonus. Unfortunately, given the Supreme Court’s stay of the lower court decision, CHNV parole terminations should be considered effective and EADs based on these paroles revoked. As of the date of the FRN, or at least as of the date of any individual notices sent to their accounts, affected parolees will be residing in the United States without lawful status and accruing unlawful presence. Their employers will be within their rights to terminate employment based on their EADs no longer being valid. Practitioners should review cases of any CHNV parolees to determine whether they qualify for any other form of relief, especially asylum. While CLINIC has heard anecdotal reports of DHS commencing enforcement action against parolees despite their having asylum applications pending, applying for asylum nevertheless manifests a claim of subjective fear on the part of the applicant that may provide a layer of protection. Should parolees be detained and placed in expedited removal based on the administration’s current policies governing parolees and enforcement, noncitizens with a subjective fear of return should immediately and affirmatively express that fear. Practitioners may also consider filing habeas corpus petitions in the district court having jurisdiction over their clients to challenge their detention, particularly where there are indications that the detention may be unlawful or unconstitutional.

Practitioners are directed to CLINIC’s webpage, “Responding to the New Administration,” where they can find a number of sources on the topics of parole, enforcement, and removal proceedings under the current administration. Additionally, the National Immigration Litigation Alliance has produced a helpful advisory, “Habeas Corpus Petitions.”