On Friday, September 12, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a seismic ruling that could upend the lives of approximately 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The decision, handed down by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, allows the Trump administration to end legal protections that had previously enabled these migrants to live and work legally in the United States under a humanitarian parole program. This marks the latest—and perhaps most consequential—development in a protracted legal battle over the future of U.S. immigration policy.
The humanitarian parole program, established during President Joe Biden’s tenure, had offered two-year legal status and work authorization to hundreds of thousands fleeing instability and danger in their home countries. According to Reuters, the program was designed as a temporary measure, but for many, it became a lifeline—one that now hangs in the balance.
Friday’s ruling lifts a stay that had been issued by a district court in April 2025, which had temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate these protections. The Supreme Court further complicated the situation in May by staying the lower court’s decision, but offered little explanation for doing so. Now, with the appeals court’s latest decision, the administration has the green light to proceed with its plans, even as the underlying lawsuit continues to wind its way through the courts.
The judges did not mince words about the stakes. In their opinion, they acknowledged the “risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court’s order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month—a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries.” However, the panel concluded, “absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay.” In other words, even though the potential consequences are dire, the court was not convinced that the legal arguments for keeping the protections in place were strong enough to warrant blocking the administration’s move.
The reaction from immigrant-rights advocates was swift and somber. Esther Sung, legal director of the Justice Action Center and co-counsel in the case, told The Associated Press, “People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain.” She added, “While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues.”
Many of those affected have built lives in the United States—holding jobs, raising families, and contributing to their communities. The prospect of losing their legal status and work permits, advocates warn, could mean abrupt family separations, loss of livelihoods, and the risk of deportation to countries where violence and instability remain all too real. As reported by Reuters, legal groups have argued that the court’s decision to allow categorical termination of protections—without individual review—could lead to unjust outcomes for people who have followed every rule laid out by the government.
The Trump administration, for its part, has defended its actions as both lawful and necessary. According to court filings cited by Reuters and the Associated Press, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has always maintained that humanitarian parole was intended to be temporary, and that the agency retains the authority to revoke such protections at its discretion. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that requiring the DHS secretary to review each individual case would be a “gargantuan task” that would slow the government’s efforts to remove migrants deemed ineligible to remain in the country. “The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter,” government lawyers wrote in their brief.
Plaintiffs in the case, including many who benefited from the parole program, have pushed back hard against this reasoning. They contend that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cannot simply wipe away protections for entire groups without considering the unique circumstances of each individual. As their attorneys wrote, “The district court applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Secretary Noem’s action inflicted irreparable injury on the class members (among others) and that the public interest and balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of preliminary relief.”
District court judge Indira Talwani had previously sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a ruling in April that blocked the administration’s efforts to end the program without case-by-case review. However, that decision was short-lived: the Supreme Court intervened in May, staying Judge Talwani’s order and setting the stage for the appeals court’s decision on Friday.
For now, the immediate effect of the ruling is to allow the Trump administration to move forward with plans to terminate humanitarian parole for these groups, even as legal challenges continue. As the Associated Press notes, “the ruling Friday is a victory for the Trump administration, but doesn’t change anything on the ground.” Parolees could soon lose their work permits and protection from deportation, but the ultimate fate of the program—and those who depend on it—remains uncertain as litigation proceeds.
The broader political context is impossible to ignore. During his campaign, Donald Trump promised to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and has since sought to dismantle many of the Biden administration’s immigration policies. This latest move represents the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole in U.S. history, with attorneys for the migrants describing it as “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.” Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that border security and the integrity of immigration law must be upheld, while critics contend that such sweeping actions inflict unnecessary harm on families and communities.
As the legal wrangling continues, the uncertainty facing hundreds of thousands of migrants grows more acute. Advocates remain determined to fight for their clients, while the administration insists it is simply exercising its lawful authority. The coming weeks and months will determine whether the courts—or Congress—will step in to provide a more permanent resolution.
For the migrants caught in the crossfire, each new court ruling brings a fresh wave of anxiety, hope, and, above all, uncertainty about what the future holds.
