FILE – Former President Donald Trump speaks at the New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women Lilac Luncheon, June 27, 2023, in Concord, N.H. Trump is already laying a sweeping set of policy goals should he win a second term as president. Priorities on the Republican’s agenda include a mass deportation operation, a new Muslim ban and tariffs on all imported goods. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)
A federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked the “unlawful termination of humanitarian parole processes” by the Trump administration for more than a half-million Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who have been allowed to enter the United States and work under an umbrella of deportation protections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said in her order Monday that she was siding with immigrants from the four countries — who filed a lawsuit in late February and were seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) with the groups Justice Action Center and Human Rights First — on account of President Donald Trump’s attempt to revoke “previously granted parole and work authorizations” for individuals currently living in the United States without a “case-by-case review,” which she said was an “unlawful action.”
“Plaintiffs were paroled into the United States by complying with the immigration processes made available to them,” wrote Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, in a 41-page order filed in Boston.
“As lawful parolees, they did not have to fear arrest for being in the United States, were permitted to legally work if they received work authorization, and could apply for adjustment of status or other benefits while paroled into this country,” Talwani explained. “The immediate impact of the shortening of their grant of parole is to cause their lawful status in the United States to lapse early — in less than two weeks,” the judge said.
An estimated 110,240 Cubans, 211,040 Haitians, 117,330 Venezuelans and 93,070 Nicaraguans have come to the U.S. through the “CHVN” parole program for people from these countries, according to the Miami Herald. The newspaper reports that many of them have been living and working in South Florida after receiving sponsorship from relatives to apply for asylum and other protections.
One of the plaintiffs and immigrants suing President Donald Trump and the Trump administration, identified in pleadings as Lucia Doe, “works cleaning apartments, condominiums, houses, schools, and businesses,” per court filings.
The woman’s alleged plan when seeking parole was to use her two-year grant of parole to work as a way to “support her parents and to save money for the future,” as well as to pay back her sister for the money her sister spent helping Lucia Doe obtain a work permit and secure transportation to the United States, her lawyers say.
“She fears returning to Venezuela, where she says it is especially difficult to find employment over the age of 40,” Talwani said in her Monday order, citing the plaintiff’s prior declarations and allegations, as well as others who are suing. “She has been saving money in case she needs to purchase a last-minute ticket to Venezuela, as to avoid unlawful status in the United States,” Talwani said.
The woman’s attorneys wrote in their emergency TRO motion, which was filed on March 27 — in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s plans to revoke the humanitarian CHVN program on April 24 — that the Trump administration’s actions were “unprecedented” and would result in “hundreds of thousands of individuals losing lawful status and work authorization.”
More from Law&Crime: ‘Going to assassinate him myself’: Man ‘buying 1 gun a month since the election’ threatened to kill Trump in multiple YouTube comments under name ‘Mr Satan,’ FBI says
Talwani said in her order that if their parole status was allowed to lapse later this month, the plaintiffs “will be faced with two unfavorable options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings.”
If they choose to leave the country on their own, Talwani noted how they would allegedly “face dangers in their native countries, as set forth in their affidavits” — and for some, leaving would cause family separation and mean that the immigrants “will have forfeited any opportunity to obtain a remedy based on their APA claims, as leaving may moot those claims.”
“If, in the alternative, Plaintiffs remain in the United States and await removal proceedings, they may be subject to arrest and detention, they will no longer be authorized to work legally in this country and their opportunities to seek any adjustment of status will evaporate,” Talwani added.
The Trump administration has argued that the decision whether to terminate parole by Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem, is ultimately “within the Secretary’s discretion” and that the defendants “will have the opportunity to renew their requests for immigration benefits” if placed in removal proceedings, according to Talwani’s order. But at a hearing last week, the Justice Department admitted that the plaintiffs would be unable to renew most of their immigration benefits if selected for removal, regardless of the circumstance.
“Even if Plaintiffs can renew requests for certain benefits, some requests may very well be denied simply because Plaintiffs would no longer be in lawful status,” Talwani said Monday. “Despite claiming Plaintiffs could renew requests in removal proceedings, Defendants: are defending the FRN, which states that the revoking of parole is designed to ensure expedited removal (thereby avoiding removal proceedings); and insist that Plaintiffs can be subjected to expedited removal proceedings while acknowledging, at a hearing before this court, that Plaintiffs could not renew most immigration benefits requests if placed in expedited proceedings.”
Talwani’s ruling comes as immigration and deportations continue to be a heated issue in the courts right now following President Trump’s decision to boot people under an 18th-century wartime authority.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration continued to defy an order from the U.S. Supreme Court instructing the government to provide details about the steps it had taken to “facilitate” the return of a Maryland resident mistakenly deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) to a notorious work prison in El Salvador. The Department of Justice asserted Sunday in court filings that under the high court’s order — which largely affirmed a lower-court ruling — it was not required to work with Salvadoran officials to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, so long as the government removed “any domestic obstacles” that would otherwise impede it from happening.
In a seven-page filing, the administration argued that federal courts do not have the authority to direct the administration to engage with the government of El Salvador at all, setting the stage for what is likely to be another eventual showdown at the Supreme Court. The Justice Department further asserted that interpreting the term “facilitate” to require any additional action on behalf of the administration would not be “tenable — or constitutional.”
Since last week, the government has refused to provide any additional information on Abrego Garcia’s status other than to notify a U.S. District Court in Maryland that he was alive and in El Salvador, despite the court requiring daily status reports regarding his return to the country.
In New York, the father of a 19-year-old man came forward this week and said he was allegedly detained by ICE agents in February and mistakenly deported to El Salvador under the AEA.
His dad, Wilmer Gutiérrez, told the nonprofit news outlet Documented that the agents who took his son, Merwil Gutiérrez, were allegedly informed by another person being detained that Merwil was the wrong person.
“The officers grabbed him and two other boys right at the entrance to our building,” Wilmer alleged. “One said, ‘No, he’s not the one,’ like they were looking for someone else. But the other said, ‘Take him anyway.’”
Trump on Saturday evening stated that the fate of Abrego Garcia and all of the “barbarians” deported without due process through the AEA was up to El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele.
On Monday, Trump met with Bukele at the White House and took questions about Abrego Garcia’s situation, per NPR.
Both he and Bukele tried claiming that their country’s hands were tied when pressed by reporters about why Abrego Garcia couldn’t be brought back to the United States.
“The question is preposterous,” Bukele said. “How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.”
Asked why the U.S. wasn’t complying with the Supreme Court’s order, Trump told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins: “How long do we have to answer this question? Why don’t you just say, ‘Isn’t it wonderful that we’re keeping criminals out of our country?’ Why can’t you just say that?”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
Jerry Lambe contributed to this report.
