Evaluating Trump's Power to Revoke Humanitarian Parole: Appeals Court Weighs In

An appeals court in the United States is currently reviewing whether former President Donald Trump had the legal authority to broadly rescind the humanitarian parole program. This initiative has facilitated the orderly and temporary entry of over 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The hearing, held this week in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts, is pivotal in determining the future of this immigration benefit.

Key Issues Discussed During the Hearing

The Trump administration argues that Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acted within her legal powers when she revoked the humanitarian parole on a general scale, bypassing individual case assessments. Originally launched by former President Joe Biden, the program provided a legal pathway for certain migrants who met security checks and had a U.S. sponsor.

During the proceedings, Drew Ensign, an attorney for the Department of Justice, defended this stance, citing the Supreme Court's recent intervention that allowed the revocations to proceed while the appeal is considered. "As implicitly recognized by the Supreme Court through a unanimous vote, it's likely that the government will succeed on appeal," Ensign said. "This court should reject the brazen request by the plaintiffs to defy the Supreme Court," he added, according to a report by Reuters.

Initial Block by Judge Indira Talwani

On April 14, Federal Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by Barack Obama, temporarily halted the revocation of humanitarian parole, arguing that Noem could only act on a case-by-case basis rather than categorically. This decision provided temporary relief to the more than half a million beneficiaries of the program. However, in May, the Supreme Court lifted that order, allowing the government to resume cancellations while the case continued in the legal system. Although the decision was unanimous, the high court did not explain its rationale, creating uncertainty about the true scope of the measure.

Insights from the Appeals Judges

The three judges presiding over the case were all appointed by Democratic presidents, leading to hopeful anticipation among migrants. Nonetheless, they gave no clear indication of their leanings. Judge William Kayatta acknowledged the complexity of the situation: "We are in an unusual setting where we asked for guidance from the Supreme Court... and were only given the final outcome."

Attorney Justin Cox, representing the migrants, cautioned that the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order does not obligate the appeals court to assume a government victory: "The First Circuit would be speculating if it tried to assign any particular meaning."

Potential Outcomes

If the court rules in favor of the Trump administration, the revocations of humanitarian parole will proceed, potentially resulting in detentions or deportations for thousands of beneficiaries. Judge Gustavo Gelpí warned that even if Talwani prevails in this appeal, the government might still cancel the parole through other administrative methods. Nonetheless, Cox emphasized that even a partial judicial victory remains significant: "At the very least, it would allow our clients and class members the dignity to leave on their own terms, rather than being subjected to the types of deportation and detention processes happening right now."

Summary:

• Trump seeks to broadly cancel humanitarian parole.
• A federal judge initially blocked the move, but the Supreme Court lifted that block without explanation.
• An appeals court must now decide on the legality of the total cancellation.
• More than 530,000 migrants, including thousands of Cubans, could lose their status if the decision favors the government.