Court Revives Trump Bid to End Biden Parole Program
A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration may once again revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants who entered the United States using the CBP One mobile application introduced during the Biden administration. The decision allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to resume efforts to terminate immigration protections that had previously been paused by the courts, marking another significant legal victory for President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. The ruling could affect approximately 985,000 migrants who used the app to schedule appointments at ports of entry and were later granted temporary permission to enter and remain in the United States under humanitarian parole. (Reuters)
CBP One was introduced under President Joe Biden as part of a broader strategy to create lawful pathways for migrants seeking entry into the United States while reducing unlawful border crossings. Through the application, migrants could schedule appointments at designated border crossings and, after security screening, many were granted humanitarian parole allowing them to live and work temporarily in the country while pursuing immigration proceedings. Supporters argued the system reduced pressure at the southern border, while critics claimed it exceeded the executive branch’s statutory authority by creating a large-scale parole program without congressional approval.
After taking office, President Trump moved quickly to dismantle several Biden-era immigration programs, including the CBP One parole initiative. The administration announced that it would revoke the parole status of nearly one million migrants who entered through the program, arguing that humanitarian parole should only be granted on a case-by-case basis rather than through a broad administrative policy. Homeland Security officials maintained that the program was inconsistent with federal immigration law and that terminating parole would restore congressional intent regarding immigration enforcement.
The administration’s plan immediately faced legal challenges from immigrant advocacy organizations and affected migrants. Plaintiffs argued that the government failed to provide individualized reviews before revoking parole and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by attempting to terminate legal protections without following required legal procedures. They also contended that many migrants had relied on the government’s authorization to build lives, obtain employment, enroll children in school, and comply with immigration requirements, making abrupt termination unfair and legally defective.
Earlier this year, a federal court temporarily blocked the administration from broadly revoking migrants’ parole status, concluding that the government had not sufficiently explained its actions or considered the individual circumstances of affected migrants. That injunction temporarily prevented DHS from carrying out its mass revocation plan while litigation continued.
In the latest ruling, however, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher concluded that the administration had addressed the procedural concerns identified in the earlier litigation by issuing revised termination notices and conducting a new administrative process. As a result, the judge ruled that DHS may proceed with a renewed effort to revoke parole status, finding that the revised actions were legally distinguishable from the earlier attempt that had been blocked. The court did not determine whether the overall policy is ultimately lawful but held that the administration may continue implementing the revised process while the broader legal dispute proceeds.
The decision does not automatically remove affected migrants from the United States. Instead, individuals whose parole is terminated may become subject to immigration enforcement proceedings, including possible removal, unless they qualify for another form of legal protection such as asylum, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or another immigration benefit. Each case may still require separate administrative proceedings before removal can occur.
Immigration advocates criticized the ruling, arguing that hundreds of thousands of migrants who complied with government instructions now face uncertainty despite following legal entry procedures established by the federal government. They contend that many parole recipients relied on the program in good faith and should not be penalized because of changes in presidential administrations. The Trump administration, meanwhile, argues that restoring strict limits on humanitarian parole is necessary to enforce immigration law consistently and discourage future misuse of executive authority.
The litigation remains ongoing, and additional appeals are expected. The outcome could establish important precedent regarding the scope of presidential authority to terminate humanitarian parole programs created by previous administrations. More broadly, the case illustrates the continuing legal battles over executive immigration policies and the balance between presidential discretion, statutory immigration authority, and procedural protections under federal administrative law.
Key Legal Outcome
- A federal judge allowed the Trump administration to resume revoking the legal status of migrants who entered through the CBP One app during the Biden administration.
- The ruling affects approximately 985,000 migrants who received humanitarian parole through the program.
- The court found that DHS’s revised termination process addressed procedural issues identified in an earlier injunction.
- The judge did not issue a final ruling on the legality of the overall policy, allowing the revised process to move forward while litigation continues.
- Migrants whose parole is revoked may still pursue other forms of immigration relief, depending on their individual circumstances.
Why It Matters
- The ruling strengthens the Trump administration’s authority to reverse major Biden-era immigration policies.
- Nearly one million migrants could face renewed uncertainty regarding their legal status in the United States.
- The case may establish precedent on the executive branch’s authority to terminate humanitarian parole programs.
- The litigation highlights the ongoing legal conflict over immigration policy between successive presidential administrations.
- Future appellate rulings could shape how humanitarian parole programs are created, modified, or revoked by future presidents.
