US judge blocks Trump from suspending Biden-era migrant 'parole' programs
U.S. President Donald Trump takes questions from the press during a swearing-in ceremony for the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 28, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis
BOSTON - A U.S. federal judge on Wednesday ordered President Donald Trump's administration to resume processing applications from migrants seeking work permits or more lasting immigration status who are living in the country temporarily under "parole" programs.
The ruling by District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston will provide relief to thousands of migrants from Afghanistan, Latin America, and Ukraine who were granted a two-year "parole" to live in the country under programs established by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration.
The same judge had previously blocked the Trump administration from revoking the parole status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. The administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause her decision.
Talwani, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, rejected the Trump administration's claim that suspending the parole programs was within its broad discretion to direct immigration policy.
Federal law still requires agencies under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to follow a lengthy process for granting or denying parole and other immigration relief, she wrote in siding with migrants pursuing a class action lawsuit.
"We are pleased that the court has again rightly recognized the harm the government's arbitrary decision-making has inflicted on innocent people," Anwen Hughes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Human Rights First, said in a statement.
The Homeland Security Department did not respond to requests for comment.
The ruling came on the same day as a U.S. trade court decision to block Trump's tariffs from going into effect, delivering simultaneous blows to two of the president's core agendas around trade and immigration.
The decision came in a lawsuit challenging a pause on the processing of applications from Ukrainian, Afghan, Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan migrants either seeking to be granted entry through the parole process or who have already been granted that status and are seeking to stay.
Talwani's decision focused on policies adopted after Trump on his first day back in office on January 20 signed an executive order directing it to end the Biden-era parole program.
In a memo that day, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman directed agencies under his purview to pause, modify or terminate any categorical parole programs, which he asserted were not authorized by law as parole could only be granted on a case-by-case basis.
DHS officials subsequently stopped processing new parole applications and in mid-February barred staff from considering requests from migrants from Ukraine and Latin America who had already been granted parole to pursue other forms of immigration status, such as asylum or temporary protected status. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
36 minutes ago
- Straits Times
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke ‘parole' status for migrants
The US Supreme Court's move potentially exposes 532,000 migrants to rapid removal from the United States. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on May 30 let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold a federal judge's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Mr Trump's predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts. Two of the court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the decision. Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the US. Mr Biden used parole as part of his administration's approach to deter illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border. Mr Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programmes in an executive order signed on Jan 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal." The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body, seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 let Mr Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Mr Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. In a bid to reduce illegal border crossings, Mr Biden starting in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the US by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Mr Biden expanded that process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023, as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those nationalities. The plaintiffs, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the programme's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put Judge Talwani's decision on hold. In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that Judge Talwani's order had upended "critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry," effectively "undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election" that returned Mr Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation "to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump administration orders extra vetting of all visa applicants linked to Harvard University
FILE PHOTO: A view of the Business School campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., April 15, 2025. REUTERS/Faith Ninivaggi/File Photo FILE PHOTO: Students walk on the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., May 23, 2025. REUTERS/Faith Ninivaggi/File Photo WASHINGTON - The U.S. State Department ordered all its consular missions overseas to begin additional vetting of visa applicants looking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose, according to an internal cable seen by Reuters on Friday, in a significant expansion of President Donald Trump's crackdown against the academic institution. In a cable dated May 30 and sent to all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed the immediate start of "additional vetting of any non-immigrant visa applicant seeking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose." Such applicants include but are not limited to prospective students, students, faculty, employees, contractors, guest speakers, and tourists, the cable said. Harvard University "failed to maintain a campus environment free from violence and anti-Semitism", the cable said, citing the Department of Homeland Security and therefore the enhanced vetting measures aim to help consular officers identify visa applicants "with histories of anti-Semitic harassment and violence." The order also directs consular officers to consider questioning the credibility of the applicant if the individual's social media accounts are private and instruct them to ask the applicant to set their accounts to public. The additional measures on Harvard were first reported by Fox News, but the cable itself has not been previously reported. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The move is part of the Trump administration's intensifying immigration crackdown and follows Rubio's order to stop scheduling new appointments for student and exchange visitor visa applicants. The top U.S. diplomat also said earlier this week that Washington will start revoking the visas of Chinese students with links to the Chinese Communist Party and those who are working on critical areas. The Trump administration has launched a multifront attack on the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, freezing billions of dollars in grants and other funding, proposing to end its tax-exempt status and opening an investigation into whether it discriminated against white, Asian, male or straight employees or job applicants. Trump alleges top U.S. universities are cradles of anti-American movements. In a dramatic escalation, his administration last week revoked Harvard's ability to enrol foreign students, a move later blocked by a federal judge. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
There's a ticking time bomb in Trump's ‘big, beautiful Bill'
THIRTY years ago, when I was a rookie reporter, a veteran writer offered me sage advice: whenever presented with a government or corporate document that is more than 100 pages long, hunt for hidden bombs. Donald Trump's thousand-page (plus) 'big, beautiful Bill' is a case in point. Since the House of Representatives passed it last week, this fiscal act has been (rightly) lambasted for many reasons: it favours the rich over the poor; cruelly cuts social safety nets; and recklessly expands the debt. Even Elon Musk is upset. But what investors should also fret about, if they care about the state of Treasuries or are a non-American entity holding US assets, is a clause buried in the bowels of this behemoth called section 899. This would enable the US Treasury to impose penalties on 'applicable persons' from 'discriminatory foreign countries' by increasing US federal income tax and withholding rates by up to 20 percentage points on their US investments, on a variable scale. It might thus be viewed as a novel 'revenge tax' (as some lawyers call it) that Trump could use to bully friends and foes alike in trade negotiations. So, at best, all this undermines prior efforts to build a collaborative global tax system via groups such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with its undertaxed profits rules. At worst, it makes Trump look like a feudal European king intent on using tax as a capricious tool to extract foreign tribute. Either way, it undermines the idea that America is a place of consistent investment laws – and has shocked lawyers in countries such as Canada. 'Section 899 is toxic (and) a potential game-changer for foreign investment,' Larson Gross, a tax advisory group, told clients this week. Or as Neil Bass, a Canadian lawyer wrote in his own missive: 'The US just declared a tax war and it's targeting allies.' George Saravelos, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, writes in a client note: 'Section 899 challenges the open nature of US capital markets by explicitly using taxation on foreign holdings of US assets as leverage to further US economic goals.' BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up So will this actually become law? The only honest answer (as with so much of Trump policy-making) is 'no one knows'. Trump's bark, after all, is often worse than his bite, and the courts sometimes rein him in, as seen with tariffs this week. Known unknowns In any case, there are a host of known unknowns around section 899. The Senate might insist that this clause is watered down or removed. Or if the surcharge stays intact, there may be provisions to let affected non-American investors and companies offset this against domestic tax bills. No one exactly knows how a 'discriminatory foreign country' will be defined (although the Treasury is supposed to regularly report on that). Nor is it entirely clear what investors and companies might be hit. At first glance, the Bill only affects non-US investors and companies already subject to US tax. But, as I recently noted, the White House recently warned in an executive order that it might overturn a crucial 1984 ruling that exempted Chinese investors, among others, from a prior 30 per cent withholding tax on assets such as US Treasuries. If so, those flows might be hit by section 899 too, as analysts such as Michael McNair suggest. Another reason for uncertainty is splits among Trump's own advisers. I am told that some love the idea of imposing revenge taxes on foreigners, since it will play well with the Maga base – and a think-tank allied with vice-president JD Vance reckons that such taxes could raise US$2 trillion revenue in the next decade. And figures such as Howard Lutnick, commerce secretary, are keen to find new weapons to wield in their trade negotiations with the EU and Canada. As the law firm Davis Polk points out, the fact that those two regions – along with the UK – impose digital services taxes could make them easy targets for section 899 measures. But Scott Bessent, Treasury secretary, is likely to be wary of invoking section 899 since he does not want to scare global investors away from Treasuries. After all, he needs to sell oodles of US government bonds to fund the ever-expanding debt – and there are already hints of some capital flight. Undermining global trust Either way, the key point is that the mere presence of section 899 in this Bill – whatever ultimately happens – is likely to further undermine global trust, given that it shows that the Trump team is at least entertaining the idea of turning trade wars into capital wars, in the future. No wonder investment groups ranging from Canadian pension funds to mighty Asian institutions tell me that they are stealthily diversifying away from US assets. Or that Federal Reserve officials recently fretted about the likely damage to America's economy if its 'safe haven' investment status is undermined. As legislative bombs go, this is self-defeating. The Senate should kick it away. FINANCIAL TIMES
