Federal judge orders Trump administration to reinstate migrant parole program

A U.S. federal judge has dealt another setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to terminate several Biden-era parole programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants from Afghanistan, Latin America, and Ukraine. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts has ordered the Trump administration to resume processing applications from migrants seeking work permits or renewing their status.

Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, rejected the Trump administration’s argument that suspending the parole programs fell within its broad discretion to direct immigration policy. Federal law still mandates that agencies under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security follow a lengthy process for granting or denying parole and other immigration relief, she wrote, supporting migrants in a class action lawsuit.

Additionally, Talwani has certified a nationwide class, providing temporary protection to all individuals in several humanitarian parole programs while the case progresses. She emphasized the detrimental impact of halting these programs, stating that it is not in the public interest for hundreds of thousands of individuals to become unlawfully present in the country, unable to work or support their families.

The migrants granted parole under these programs were allowed to live in the U.S. for two years, with the programs established by former President Joe Biden. However, the Trump administration has been attempting to end all parole programs as part of its immigration crackdown. President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the government to terminate all categorical parole programs initiated during the Biden administration.

Last month, Talwani blocked the administration’s move to revoke parole and work authorization en masse for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, asserting that such actions necessitated individual determinations. The administration has sought the Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter.

Anwen Hughes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Human Rights First, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing the government’s obligation to respect the rights of humanitarian parole beneficiaries and their American hosts. The hope is that the government will comply with the court’s order and promptly resume reviewing the applications for relief.

In conclusion, the ruling by Judge Talwani underscores the importance of due process and adherence to legal obligations in immigration policy. The ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities and challenges in addressing the status of migrants under humanitarian parole programs.