US EditionJudge rules that Trump administration wrongly ended humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands
- On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani determined that the Trump administration improperly halted the processing of humanitarian parole requests for hundreds of thousands of migrants residing in the United States.
- This ruling followed Trump’s January 20 executive order directing the termination of multiple parole programs, including those for Cubans, Haitians, Ukrainians, Afghans, and others, with a suspension on application processing in February.
- A coalition of parole beneficiaries, sponsors, and organizations sued the administration, arguing that the suspension stopped migrants from renewing legal status and that the affected groups include essential workers and family members living temporarily in the U.S.
- Judge Talwani stated the executive order did not authorize an indefinite suspension of applications and that DHS officials' suspension orders are unlikely to withstand legal challenge, restoring relief to migrants from Afghanistan, Latin America, and Ukraine.
- The decision provides a legal setback to Trump’s immigration policies by mandating resumed processing, but litigation continues and the immediate impacts of the ruling remain uncertain.
40 Articles
40 Articles
Spectrum Local News
Judge rules that DHS wrongly ended humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands
The decision is another setback for President Trump's plans for mass deportation, but it may prove temporary and its immediate impact is unclear.
Sen. Jon Ossoff questions Trump immigration actions of 'separating families'
In a letter, Georgia Democratic Senator Jon Osoff urged Homeland Security "to reprioritize threats to public safety in immigration enforcement" and use humanitarian parole to keep families together.
Trump Administration: Any Arguments with Little Legal Value to Flout the Courts?
The U.S. administration is increasing the use of "specious" legal arguments – with little legal value, in other words – to avoid having to comply with the judgments that displease it rather than precipitate an open constitutional crisis by rejecting them unambiguously, according to researchers at the University of Michigan.
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 46% of the sources lean Left
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
Ownership
To view ownership data please Upgrade to Vantage
