SCOTUS stays Boston judge’s order blocking Trump immigration rollback

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay of a federal judge’s order indefinitely enjoining Trump administration efforts to reverse the Biden administration’s allowance of 532,000 aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to enter the country under grants of parole.

On March 25, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem revoked categorical grants of parole issued to immigrants by the Biden administration under so-called Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela (“CHNV”) programs.

On April 14, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts granted emergency relief to plaintiffs challenging Noem’s order in Doe v. Noem. In staying the Secretary of Homeland Security’s order, Talwani held Noem lacked the statutory authority to revoke grants of parole without providing individualized, case-by-case review for each of the 532,000 aliens.

Talwani acknowledged that, under 8 U.S.C. §1182(d)(5)(A), Congress had placed individual parole determinations, and the decision of whether to revoke individual grants of parole, within the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretion.

But Talwani wrote that there was a “separate question as to whether Congress, by statute, also has given the Secretary the discretion, after parole has been granted and individuals have entered the country on a lawful basis for approved periods, to categorically truncate these grants of parole en masse and without individual review, such that review of that en masse revocation may be precluded here under [8 U.S.C. §]1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The answer is no.

“While ‘DHS was not required … to “consider all policy alternatives in reaching [its] decision” … it was required to assess whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns.’ DHS acknowledged the reliance interests of individuals who are lawfully present in the United States based on grants of parole pursuant to the CHNV programs, but its stated reason for terminating parole grants within 30 days lacked a rational basis.”

The Supreme Court’s May 30 decision stayed Talwani’s preliminary injunction pending review by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and disposition of any petition for certiorari.

“Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically,” the court wrote in its per curiam decision. “In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”

Established in 2022 and 2023, the CHNV programs allow individuals seeking escape from humanitarian crises in the designated countries to enter the U.S. under grants of parole. The program allowed the government to issue discretionary grants of parole for a period of up to two years. During that time, parolees received authorization to work while also being able to access certain benefits as well as humanitarian aid.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the court’s decision to lift the lower court’s preliminary injunction.

“When this Court evaluates whether or not to stay a lower court’s order,” Jackson wrote, “the factors we apply are well established: The applicant must show a fair prospect that we will grant certiorari and reverse, that the merits favor them, that irreparable harm will befall them should we deny the stay, and, in close cases, that the equities and public interest are on their side,” Jackson wrote. “In any given case, each of these considerations bears on the appropriateness of the requested intervention and is a prerequisite to obtaining relief.

“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending. Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits, in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory. I would have denied the Government’s application because its harm-related showing is patently insufficient. The balance of the equities also weighs heavily in respondents’ favor. While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize — not maximize — harm to litigating parties.”