The Supreme Court has revived the Trump administration’s efforts to impose stricter immigration controls by backing the request to dismantle the previous administration’s immigration parole program.
This decisive 7-2 ruling clears the way for Homeland Security to begin removing individuals who entered under what critics have long called an illegal abuse of the parole system that undermined American sovereignty and workers.
In a clear rebuke to Biden’s open-border policies, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Secretary Kristi Noem has full authority to terminate the CHNV8 (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela) parole program.
The decision allows the administration to proceed with ending temporary legal status for half a million illegal aliens while legal challenges continue in lower courts.
Two liberals joined conservative justices in rejecting a Massachusetts federal judge’s attempt to force the government to make individualized determinations before revoking parole status.
In addition, DHS officials hailed the ruling as a restoration of law and order at America’s borders.
Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin did not mince words about the previous administration’s program, which allowed hundreds of thousands of poorly vetted migrants to enter America with minimal scrutiny.
The Biden-created crisis flooded American communities with illegal aliens who competed for jobs with citizens while overburdening local resources in cities across the nation.
The Supreme Court’s decisive action comes as part of President Trump’s broader efforts to restore control over an immigration system that spiraled into chaos during the previous administration.
This marks the administration’s second major immigration victory, following an earlier decision allowing the revocation of temporary protected status for nearly 350,000 Venezuelans.
Legal experts noted that this pattern shows that the Court recognizes the executive branch’s authority to set immigration policy without judicial interference.
Meanwhile, the Court’s ruling effectively overturns U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s decision, which temporarily blocked the government from implementing the revocation.
Predictably, liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, claiming the termination would cause “devastating consequences.”
Their dissent highlighted the growing divide between constitutionalist judges who follow the law and activist judges who legislate from the bench.
The legal battle began when Secretary Noem announced the administration would not extend parole beyond the two-year approval period granted initially.
Under Biden, the CHNV program allowed individuals from the four countries to enter and remain in the U.S. after a security check and sponsorship by a U.S. resident.
Critics long asserted this was an abuse of parole authority, which by law should only be granted on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit” – not as a backdoor mass immigration program.
Although liberal advocacy groups predictably condemned the decision, conservatives and immigration enforcement supporters celebrated the ruling as a necessary step toward restoring national sovereignty.
The Trump administration claimed that Talwani’s order effectively nullified a significant policy decision properly within the executive branch’s authority.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows the administration to proceed with ending the program while the appeal continues through the courts, signaling the administration will likely prevail in the final ruling.
For Americans concerned about border security, job competition, and the rule of law, the Supreme Court’s decision represents a welcome return to constitutional governance.
By allowing the Trump administration to end this controversial program, the Court has acknowledged that immigration policy belongs in the hands of elected officials accountable to citizens.
