US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for over 5,00,000 migrants
President Donald Trump
Synopsis The US Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of many migrants. This decision impacts Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian, and Nicaraguan individuals. It puts on hold a judge's order that had blocked the administration's move. This potentially exposes many to deportation while the case continues in lower courts. 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.
ADVERTISEMENT 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 Trump's predecessor 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 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 his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants.
ADVERTISEMENT The Supreme Court on May 19 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.
ADVERTISEMENT 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 U.S. District Judge Indira 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 Talwani's decision on hold.
ADVERTISEMENT 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."
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
(Catch all the US News, UK News, Canada News, International Breaking News Events, and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily International News Updates.
NEXT STORY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump's phone lock screen photo was leaked; netizens spot uncanny 9/11 link
President Donald Trump's phone lock screen was recently captured by a Reuters photographer, and the image has sparked several theories. The 78-year-old's lock screen features a photo of himself pointing a finger. While some social media users mocked Trump for being 'narcissistic', others came up with '9/11' links. 'Trump's lock screen was spotted on his phone last night—and it was a photo of himself. Is that not one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed things you've ever seen??? Not his family, not his kids, but himself,' one person wrote on X, platform formerly known as Twitter. 'Reuters took an HD photo of the lock screen of President Trump's iPhone last night. It's a picture of himself. No president has more aura than President Trump,' another one tweeted, supporting the president. The September 11, 2001 (9/11) link comes from the time displayed on Donald Trump's phone when the photo was captured. 'Reuters took photo of lock screen of President Trump's iPhone Don't like the time it shows: 9:11 Reminds me of Trump's Butler, PA rally/assassination attempt, the only time CNN attended a Trump rally that year & how convenient, a NYT award winning photographer was also present,' one person noted on X. 'does this mean trump is going to release the 9/11 files,' another social media user asked. Neither Trump nor the White House has responded to the reactions on the former's phone lock screen. Meanwhile, Trump said on Friday he planned to increase tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%. "We are going to be imposing a 25% increase. We're going to bring it from 25% to 50% - the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States," he said at a rally in Pennsylvania. Canada's Chamber of Commerce quickly denounced the tariff hike as "antithetical to North American economic security." "Unwinding the efficient, competitive and reliable cross-border supply chains like we have in steel and aluminum comes at a great cost to both countries," Candace Laing, president of the chamber, said in a statement.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to visit US next week, meet Trump at White House
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will travel to Washington next week to meet US President Donald Trump, with the war in Ukraine and trade tensions among the items on the agenda, the German government said Saturday. Merz's office said the new German leader, who took the helm of Europe's biggest economy on May 6, will meet Trump at the White House on Thursday — the first in-person meeting between the two. It said that the meeting will address bilateral relations and international issues such as Russia's war in Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and trade policy. Merz has plunged into diplomatic efforts to try to secure a ceasefire and keep Western support for Ukraine intact since becoming Germany's leader. On Wednesday, he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Berlin. Germany has a strong interest in defusing trade tensions between the European Union and the United States. Trump threatened to impose a 50 per cent tariff on goods imported from the 27-nation bloc starting Sunday, but then pushed back the deadline to July 9.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
The man who stood up to Trump
In May last year, as Alan Garber stepped up to the podium on Harvard Alumni Day, a woman suddenly emerged from the crowd and poured gold glitter all over his head. She then began demanding the release of monkeys from the university's laboratories. With his face still covered in shimmering flecks, Mr. Garber calmly assured the attendees that he was unharmed and then declared, 'I hope that Harvard will always continue to be a place where… free speech continues to thrive.' Unbeknownst to him at the time, the physician and economist would soon become a central figure in the pushback against the Trump administration's escalating assault on academic freedom across American university campuses. The latest salvo in this ongoing conflict came when the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard's certification to enrol international students. The move prompted an immediate lawsuit from the university and a swift restraining order from a federal judge. Though the decision is interim, it brought palpable relief to students as the university held its commencement on May 29. In his address, Mr. Garber did not refer to the standoff directly, but his words struck a defiant note: Harvard, he said, welcomes students from around the world 'just as it should be'. Mr. Garber's association with Harvard spans over half a century, beginning in 1973 when he enrolled as an undergraduate. He went on to earn three degrees from the Ivy League institution — a bachelor's, a master's, and a doctorate, all in economics. He later pursued a medical degree from Stanford University, where he eventually built a distinguished academic career spanning over 25 years. Presidency forged in crisis In 2011, then-Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust invited him to serve as provost, the university's chief academic officer. Reflecting on the decision in an interview with The New York Times, she recalled being impressed by his calm demeanour and ability to build consensus in moments of conflict. Over the next 12 years, Mr. Garber solidified his reputation as a formidable senior administrator while maintaining a low public profile. By 2023, he was preparing to step away from administrative duties and return to teaching. However, fate had other plans. That year, Claudine Gay made history as Harvard's first Black female president. But her tenure came to an abrupt end just six months later, following allegations of plagiarism and mounting criticism over her handling of alleged anti-Semitism on campus. Soon thereafter, Mr. Garber found himself suddenly thrust into the spotlight, tasked with steering the university through one of its most turbulent chapters. In his first interview as interim president with The Harvard Crimson, he candidly acknowledged that he was assuming office at a 'painful and disorienting time for Harvard'. One of his first administrative decisions was to establish twin presidential task forces to address anti-Semitism and Islamophobia on campus. His appointment of Derek J. Penslar, a professor of Jewish history, as co-chair of the anti-Semitism task force drew immediate criticism, largely due to Mr. Penslar's prior writings that were critical of the Israeli government. Just over a month later, Mr. Garber made another contentious decision by appointing John F. Manning, a conservative law professor, as interim provost. This move stirred quiet discontent among the university's predominantly liberal faculty. Around the same time, Harvard adopted a new policy of not issuing official statements unrelated to its 'core functions', following the recommendations of a faculty committee. Its largest academic division also announced that it would no longer require job applicants to submit written statements affirming their commitment to diversity. What ultimately solidified Mr. Garber's reputation as a resolute leader unafraid to make unpopular decisions for the university's betterment was his handling of the pro-Palestinian encampment protests that spread across campuses. While many peer institutions responded with police crackdowns, he opted for restraint and dialogue. The encampment at Harvard concluded peacefully after he agreed to expedite petitions for reinstating suspended students and facilitated a meeting between protesters and the university's governing bodies to discuss divestment. To the Harvard Corporation, his measured response exemplified the leadership the university needed. Consequently, on August 2, 2024, Mr. Garber was appointed president through the 2026–27 academic year. During his 2024 campaign, Mr. Trump pledged to reclaim American universities from 'radical Left and Marxist maniacs', indicating that reining in academia would be a priority in his second term. Initially, Mr. Garber avoided confrontation with the new administration. When the White House announced in March that it was reviewing $9 billion in grants and contracts over Harvard's alleged failure to protect students from anti-Semitic discrimination, his response was measured rather than defiant. He expressed a willingness to work with the federal task force in outlining the university's efforts to combat anti-Semitism. In a rare personal disclosure, he revealed that he had encountered anti-Semitism himself, even while serving as president. However, the administration's next move marked a sharp escalation. On April 11, an email from federal officials laid out sweeping demands: federal oversight of faculty hiring, mandatory reporting of misconduct by international students, and the appointment of an external overseer to enforce 'viewpoint diversity' within academic departments. Three days later, Harvard released a searing letter penned by Mr. Garber. 'No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,' he wrote. Legal fight with government In the days that followed, federal officials announced the suspension of $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts awarded to the university, alongside threats to revoke its tax-exempt status. Harvard responded by suing the Trump administration, accusing it of exerting financial coercion to interfere with academic governance. The 51-page lawsuit also accused the administration of violating the First Amendment by restricting what Harvard's faculty could teach students. Harvard has already announced cuts to degree-granting programmes and halted faculty recruitment. It is also staring down a catastrophic Republican-backed endowment tax Bill. Although most of the administration's sanctions are being challenged in court, the litigation will take months if not years. Even if the courts ultimately side with Harvard, appeals are almost certain, and some hits to funding may be irreversible. Mr. Garber, too, has been compelled to concede ground. Last month, he announced that Harvard would undertake reforms to 'focus on individuals and their unique characteristics rather than their race'. Soon after, the university cancelled graduation ceremonies for affinity groups. His strategy reflects a delicate balancing act — shielding the institution from political assault while undertaking reforms that may ensure its survival.
