On September 12, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a seismic ruling that could reshape the lives of hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the Trump administration may end temporary humanitarian parole protections for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—a move affecting approximately 430,000 to 500,000 people, according to reporting from Bloomberg Law, the Associated Press, and other outlets.
The decision, issued by a three-judge panel, reverses an earlier district court order from April that had temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to terminate these protections. The district court’s stay was itself lifted by the Supreme Court at the end of May, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to proceed with revoking so-called CHNV parole grants while the legal battle continues. As the Associated Press noted, this development marks the latest twist in a protracted legal struggle over the future of humanitarian parole programs in the U.S.
At the heart of the case is the fate of migrants who arrived under Biden-era policies that created or expanded temporary pathways for individuals fleeing turmoil in their home countries. These programs generally allowed eligible migrants to live and work in the U.S. for two years. For many, these protections represented a lifeline—a chance to work legally, build a life, and avoid the dangers that awaited them back home.
But the Trump administration, which announced in March 2025 its intention to end these humanitarian parole protections, views things differently. The DHS has argued that the protections were always meant to be temporary and that it has the authority to revoke them without interference from the courts. In a brief submitted to the court, government lawyers wrote, "The Secretary's discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter." Solicitor General D. John Sauer further argued that ending parole on a case-by-case basis would be a "gargantuan task" that would hamper efforts to remove the migrants.
The appellate panel—composed of Judges Gustavo Gelpí Jr., William Kayatta Jr., and Lara E. Montecalvo—acknowledged the profound risks faced by those affected. As quoted in multiple sources, the judges wrote, "We recognize 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." Yet, they concluded, "But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay."
This ruling effectively vacates the district court’s stay and remands the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs, represented by organizations such as Justice Action Center, Human Rights First, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, have already filed for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The legal fight is far from over, but for now, the administration can move forward with its plans.
The Trump administration’s approach is part of a larger agenda to dismantle a range of humanitarian parole and refugee resettlement programs. As Bloomberg Law reported, DHS has also moved to restrict asylum, suspend entry through several parole pathways beyond the CHNV process, and eliminate humanitarian relief for hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the U.S.—including many Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans shielded by Temporary Protected Status (TPS). This broader effort aligns with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to deport millions and to prioritize what the administration calls "America First" policies.
Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin hailed the court’s decision as a "victory for the safety and security of the American people." In a statement quoted by Bloomberg Law, she said, "Ending the CHNV parole programs, as well as the paroles of those who exploited it, will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety, and a return to America First."
On the other side, advocates for the migrants and their families see the decision as a profound injustice. Esther Sung, legal director of Justice Action Center and counsel for plaintiffs, did not mince words. "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," Sung said. 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." Plaintiffs’ attorneys have described the administration’s move as "the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history."
The legal debate hinges on the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, particularly whether the "case-by-case" requirement for granting parole also limits the Secretary’s discretion to terminate it. The appellate court’s opinion, authored by Judge Gelpí, found that the law "favors an interpretation that the ‘case-by-case’ requirement only limits the Secretary’s discretion to grant parole," not to revoke it. This technical but crucial distinction paved the way for the administration’s mass termination of protections.
For the affected migrants, the consequences are immediate and deeply personal. Many now face the prospect of having to leave the United States within weeks, with the attendant risk of being separated from families, losing jobs, and returning to countries where political instability, violence, or economic hardship may await. The Associated Press highlighted the story of Wilmer Escaray, whose businesses in Florida employ scores of Venezuelan immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, underscoring the ripple effects such policy changes can have on local communities and economies.
Thousands of requests for green cards or other forms of relief remain pending at DHS, offering a sliver of hope for some. However, the administration’s broader crackdown on humanitarian programs signals a challenging path ahead for those seeking to remain in the country legally.
As the case, Doe v. Noem, continues to wind its way through the courts, the outcome could set a precedent for future administrations and the fate of similar programs. Both sides—those advocating for migrant protections and those championing stricter immigration controls—are bracing for the next round in a legal and political battle that shows no sign of abating.
For now, the lives of hundreds of thousands hang in the balance, caught between shifting legal interpretations and the ever-changing tides of American immigration policy.
