US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for migrants
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday 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 Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts.
As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, the decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented.
The court botched its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion.
The outcome, Jackson wrote, "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."
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 United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach by to deter illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexican border.
Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 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 hissweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants.
The Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under 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, Biden starting in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the United States by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. 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.
Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold.
In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that 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 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."
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Editorial: Trump's deal-making diplomacy not breaking deadlocks
An explosion of a drone lights up the sky over Kyiv during a Russian drone strike on Saturday. — Reuters US President Donald Trump's diplomacy of mediation through a deal between the major powers has once again ended in failure. Isn't it time for him to change his approach to Russia, which continues its aggression against Ukraine? Trump held telephone talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was the third such talk since the launch of Trump's second administration. During the meeting, Trump asked Putin, 'When are we going to end this [the war]?' But Putin did not answer and also refused to accept the 30-day unconditional ceasefire proposal backed by Trump. Prior to these telephone talks, Russia and Ukraine held direct talks between senior officials in Turkey for the first time in nearly three years, but no progress was made. Trump may have been trying to make a breakthrough in his top-level talks with Putin. However, after the meeting, Putin revealed that he would propose the drafting of a memorandum on a future peace treaty. This may be an attempt to prolong the negotiations by adding new procedures and to create an even more advantageous situation in the war. Putin also repeated his assertion that it is important to 'eliminate the root causes of this crisis'. This refers to demands that Ukraine cannot accept, such as ruling out Ukraine's future membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato). It is Putin's tactic to take advantage of his counterpart's conciliatory stance and increase his demands. Trump should understand that continued concessions to Putin will not lead to progress. Trump must return to the basics that Russia's aggression against Ukraine is a clear violation of international law and unacceptable, and then proceed with negotiations. To counter Russia, it is essential to increase international pressure in close cooperation with European countries. It is appropriate that after the talks, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of France, Germany, and other major European countries to share information. European countries have warned that they will impose additional sanctions if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire. In the US Senate, deliberations are also underway on a Bill for additional sanctions that would impose high tariffs on countries that import energy from Russia. There is a need to increase the options available to put pressure on Russia. With the lack of diplomatic achievements, there are indications that Trump will decrease his engagement in the role of mediator in future. This is because after talks with Putin, Trump posted on social media that 'Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations' as if leaving the negotiations up to those parties. However, it should not be forgotten that the United States is providing Ukraine with weapons and military intelligence, which is the greatest source of pressure on Russia. If the United States pulls back, Washington will inevitably be accused of giving in to Putin. – The Yomiuri Shimbun/Asia News Network
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Return to The Rock
US President Donald Trump wants to convert Alcatraz back into a federal prison, decades after the California island fortress was converted into a tourist destination because it had become too costly to house America's worst criminals. The prison off the coast of San Francisco – nicknamed 'The Rock' – is where the government sent notorious gangsters like Al Capone and George 'Machine Gun' Kelly as well as lesser-known men who were considered too dangerous to lock up elsewhere. Circled by herons and gulls and often shrouded in fog, Alcatraz has been the setting for movies featuring Sean Connery, Nicolas Cage and Clint Eastwood. Trump says Alcatraz, now part of the National Park Service, is needed to house America's 'most ruthless and violent' criminals. 'When we were a more serious nation, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm. That's the way it's supposed to be,' Trump said on his Truth Social site. California Democratic state senator Scott Wiener criticised Trump, saying he wants to create a 'domestic gulag right in the middle of San Francisco Bay'. Alcatraz is in the bay and visible from San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge. It is known for its years as a prison, from 1934-63, but its history is much longer. Tourists visiting Alcatraz Prison, a National Parks site located on Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, California.— Reuters/AP President Millard Fillmore in 1850 declared the island for public purposes, according to the park service, and it soon became a military site. Confederates were housed there during the Civil War. By the 1930s, the government decided that it needed a place to hold the worst criminals, and Alcatraz became the choice. 'A remote site was sought, one that would prohibit constant communication with the outside world by those confined within its walls,' the park service said. 'Although land in Alaska was being considered, the availability of Alcatraz Island coincided with the government's perceived need for a high security prison.' The remoteness eventually made it impractical. Everything from food to fuel had to arrive by boat. 'The island had no source of fresh water,' according to the US Bureau of Prisons, 'so nearly one million gallons of water had to be barged to the island each week'. The cost to house someone there in 1959 was US$10.10 a day compared with US$3 at a federal prison in Atlanta. It was cheaper to build a new prison from scratch. Despite the location, many prisoners tried to get out: 36 men attempted 14 separate escapes into the bay, according to the FBI. Nearly all were caught or didn't survive the cold water and swift current. Escape from Alcatraz, a 1979 movie starring Clint Eastwood, told the story of John Anglin, his brother Clarence and Frank Morris, who all escaped in 1962, leaving behind handmade plaster heads with real hair in their beds to fool guards. The warden's house at Alcatraz Island in San Francisco. — Reuters/AP 'For the 17 years we worked on the case, no credible evidence emerged to suggest the men were still alive, either in the US or overseas,' the FBI said. Alcatraz became part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and was opened to the public in 1973, a decade after it was closed as a prison. The park service says the island gets more than a million visitors a year who arrive by ferry. A ticket for an adult costs US$47.95, and visitors can see the cells where prisoners were held. Rob Frank, 55, of Springfield, Missouri, said he toured Alcatraz about a decade ago. He said it's hard to imagine the millions of dollars that would be needed to reopen the prison. 'It didn't seem very humane to me,' Frank said. 'They had the cells stacked on top of each other. Small cells. Everything's concrete. It was kind of a dark place.' In 1969, a group of Native Americans, mostly college students, claimed to have a historical right to Alcatraz and began an occupation that lasted for 19 months until federal authorities intervened in 1971. '(Their) underlying goals ... on Alcatraz were to awaken the American public to the reality of the plight of the First Americans and to assert the need for (Native) self-determination,' late historian Troy Johnson wrote. — AP
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Making nationalism scary again
THANKS are owed to Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and – in a special mention – JD Vance: The aggressive nationalism and chaos these three men promote have made far-right populism scary again, swinging several recent elections, including Romania's presidential vote on May 18. That should be welcome news for anyone who recognises the potential damage a nationalist free-for-all can inflict. But make no mistake, without a radical transformation in their approach, this reprieve for traditional parties of the centre right and left will be short-lived. First, there was Canada, where Trump's trade wars and talk of turning the country into the 51st US state helped erase a commanding opinion poll lead for the country's Maga-lookalike Conservative Party. Then, on May 18, Bucharest's mayor and maths nerd Nicusor Dan scored an equally dramatic, come-from-behind victory to win Romania's presidency. He ran as a moderate independent against George Simion, a nationalist who also had nailed his colours to Trump's mast. Vance ruffled feathers in Romania earlier in 2025, when he used the country's annulment of a first-round presidential vote in November 2024 to accuse Europe of abandoning democracy. Vance dismissed the basis for that court decision – intelligence findings of a massive TikTok campaign organised and paid for by Russia – as 'flimsy'. But a raft of evidence has emerged to support the ruling. In Romania's case, the biggest shift driving the May 18 result was Putin's act of hybrid warfare. Russia's Manchurian candidate was banned from standing again. But when Simion won May's first-round rerun even more convincingly, his success prompted a backlash. Turnout soared for the run-off. Bucharest crowds willing Dan to his 54% to 46%victory chanted: 'Russia don't forget, Romania is not yours.' In fact, the vote may well have been swung by the huge increase in participation by voters in neighbouring Moldova, where more than one million people have dual Romanian citizenship. Simion and his Alliance for the Union of Romanians party cried foul, but so far without providing evidence. It is explanation enough that they were pledging to reunify Moldova with Romania and halt military aid to Ukraine. Both proposals pose existential threats to the small ex-Soviet state, one from the west and the other from the east. These are skin-of-the-teeth escapes for political elites who seem yet to have grasped the scale of the anger felt by voters who want genuine change. Warning lights were flashing this past weekend, too, in Portugal, where the ruling centre-right coalition increased the number of seats it controls in Parliament in the May 18 snap election. Yet it still failed to gain a majority and the day's bigger story was that the far-right Chega party surged to 23% of the vote, mainly at the expense of the centre-left socialists. The country's traditional two-party system now looks broken. There is a lesson here for all centrist parties, especially those on the left that have lost the trust of their traditional bedrock support among blue-collar workers. If they are to survive, these politicians must now be seen to deliver the fundamental change and economic improvement so many voters want. Managing and tinkering will not cut it. Poland shows the challenge. Former European Council president Donald Tusk and his Civic Platform party won back power from the populist Law and Justice Party in late 2023. But delivering on reform promises has proved tough, especially with a Law and Justice president still in office to block legislative change. On May 18, Warsaw's mayor and Tusk ally Rafal Trzaskowski emerged from a first-round presidential vote with a slender lead over his Law and Justice rival, according to exit polls. Strong showings from two other far-right candidates suggest an uphill struggle to win the run-off. Trzaskowski pledged to 'speed up changes'. There is a similar dynamic at play across Western democracies. It does not matter that Brexit has clearly failed to deliver on any of its promises in the United Kingdom, or that Trump and his administration at times resemble an out-of-control clown car as much as a government in office. The point is they are breaking things, which is what many voters want to see. And so long as Maga-like populists are the only ones offering radical change, they will probably be able to ride a growing tide of voter frustration. So yes, Trump and Putin's clumsy aggression is for now undercutting the credibility of their populist acolytes in Western democracies. Yet this respite will count for little if moderates cannot find ways to show they recognise the need for change, and effect it. That is admittedly a tall order. Improving productivity and healthcare, while still tackling climate change and halting Russian aggression in Europe, is infinitely harder than feeding anti-vax conspiracy theories and culture wars, or promising unaffordable handouts. But leaders who recognise the vast damage populist chaos can cause will have to be more bold. They need to pick fights, take risks and break some taboos of their own. Romania's new president, to name just one example, should use his meaningful, if limited, powers to launch a high-profile assault on corruption, forcing him into open warfare with the traditional parties that not only run the government and legislature, but also helped him win the run-off. This will require levels of political courage not yet on display. But it is probably also, at this point, a binary choice. If centrist politicians cannot address the fury so many voters feel over the failure of an era of unprecedented wealth creation and cultural change, then it is only a matter of time before those leaders are roadkill. – Bloomberg Opinion/TNS
