Judge pauses expedited deportations of migrants granted humanitarian parole

CNN

5 days ago

A federal judge on Friday paused the Trump administration's efforts to fast-track the deportation of migrants who legally entered the United States through humanitarian parole programs, marking a win for immigrant rights groups who argued the policy was illegal and dangerous.
The ruling temporarily blocks the government from deporting individuals who were granted parole at ports of entry and were later detained — often without warning and in some cases after appearing at immigration courts — despite having valid documents, jobs or other pending forms of relief.
'In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,' wrote Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. 'Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here.'
'This case's underlying question … asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules,' Cobb wrote. 'Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that … may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?'
In her opinion, Cobb ruled that the policy likely violates the expedited removal statute and is 'arbitrary and capricious' under administrative law. The pause will remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds.
The formal order pauses enforcement of three Trump-era directives: a Homeland Security memo from January, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement directive from February and the March termination of parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Cobb's ruling applies specifically to people who were previously granted parole at ports of entry.
This case marks one of the first major court challenges to immigration policy under President Donald Trump's second term and is widely seen as a bellwether for how federal courts will interpret executive power following the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, which narrowed the scope of nationwide injunctions.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the administration's decision to apply 'expedited removal' — a fast-track deportation process normally used for recent border crossers — to migrants who entered legally and were complying with government instructions. Under new guidance issued this spring, ICE agents began detaining parolees outside courtrooms and at checkpoints, often without giving them access to attorneys.
Advocates warned the policy could put more than 2 million people at risk of summary deportation, including many who came to the US fleeing persecution and were pursuing legal pathways to stay.
The challengers — led by Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), CASA, and UndocuBlack — argued that DHS is violating the Immigration and Nationality Act by treating legally paroled migrants as if they had entered unlawfully. Their suit also raises due process concerns, saying the new policy endangers vulnerable communities without giving them a chance to be heard.
Hillary Li, an attorney representing the challengers, said the groups 'are deeply committed to protecting our communities from the harms of expedited removal,' adding they are 'grateful the court recognized that this practice is unlawful.'
The case is part of a broader legal fight over how far the executive branch can go in dismantling Biden-era immigration and parole policies.