June 2, 2025 Story by: Editor
In a major immigration ruling with sweeping humanitarian implications, the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted the federal government to proceed with the termination of the CHNV humanitarian parole program, which allowed over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to live and work in the United States.
The decision came in response to the Biden-era program being challenged by the Trump administration, which has sought to curtail executive immigration relief efforts. The Court’s unsigned majority decision granted the administration’s request for an emergency stay, thereby overriding a lower court ruling that had temporarily protected the program’s participants.
But the decision was not unanimous.
Dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
In a sharply worded dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson condemned the ruling and accused the Court of authorizing avoidable harm to hundreds of thousands of noncitizens whose legal claims are still pending.
“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today,” Jackson wrote.
“It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”
She further stated that the government was using the stay not to prevent harm to itself, but to cause harm to others:
“While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties.”
Jackson’s dissent has since drawn attention from legal analysts and immigrant rights advocates, who argue the Court is increasingly allowing executive discretion to override humanitarian concerns without a full legal reckoning.
What Was the CHNV Program?
Launched by the Biden administration in late 2022, the CHNV program allowed up to 30,000 vetted migrants per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to enter the U.S. for two years under humanitarian parole. The goal was to provide an orderly, legal pathway amid rising instability in those nations and reduce dangerous, unauthorized crossings at the southern border.
Participants were required to have a U.S.-based sponsor, undergo security and background checks, and receive approval prior to travel. Many of them had integrated into U.S. communities, secured employment, and enrolled children in schools.
Political and Legal Background
In 2023, 21 Republican-led states sued to block the CHNV program, arguing that the administration had exceeded its statutory authority. The Biden administration defended the program as a lawful exercise of parole discretion under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
A federal district court temporarily preserved the program, but the Supreme Court’s decision on May 30, 2025, reverses that stay, allowing DHS to begin terminating parole protections even as litigation continues in the lower courts.
“This case is not about whether the government may end this parole program eventually,” Jackson wrote. “It’s about whether it may do so immediately—before the legality of that decision has been fully reviewed.”
The Human Toll and Next Steps
Immigration lawyers warn that migrants who relied on this legal pathway now face uncertainty, the loss of work authorization, and even deportation. Deportations to crisis-wracked countries like Haiti and Venezuela have already drawn condemnation from international human rights organizations.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case itself is not over. Oral arguments are expected in the First Circuit Court of Appeals later this summer. Until then, advocates are urging the Biden administration to halt removals and extend protections through other legal channels.
Final Reflection
The Court’s ruling underscores the high-stakes nature of immigration policy battles now being decided by a deeply divided judiciary. In her dissent, Justice Jackson posed a moral and legal warning:
“We cannot pretend that those caught in this legal purgatory are not real people with real lives. Today’s decision ignores that basic truth.”
Source: AP News / Miami Herald / SCOTUSblog / Time Magazine / U.S. Supreme Court: Full Dissent by Justice Jackson
