President Biden’s parole program, particularly the initiatives aimed at nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (collectively referred to as the CHNV parole programs), has become a significant flashpoint for legal challenges at the state level. These programs were designed to provide a pathway for certain immigrants from these countries to enter and remain in the United States temporarily under parole status, which allows them to live and work legally while their cases are processed. However, the termination and modification of these parole programs have sparked a wave of lawsuits from states and other entities, raising complex questions about federal authority, state interests, and immigration policy.
The core of the controversy lies in the Biden administration’s decision to end the CHNV parole programs, which was announced in early 2025. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Federal Register notice terminating these parole programs effective March 25, 2025, with plans to end the temporary parole periods and revoke employment authorization for those paroled under these programs by April 24, 2025. This move was met with immediate legal pushback from various plaintiffs, including states, immigrant advocacy groups, and individuals who had been granted parole under these programs.
One of the main legal arguments against the termination is that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies propose and establish regulations. Plaintiffs argue that the abrupt termination was arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient justification or proper procedural steps. Courts have been involved in assessing whether the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretionary decisions to end these parole programs are subject to judicial review, a key jurisdictional hurdle. While the government contends that such decisions are discretionary and thus not reviewable under certain statutes, courts have found grounds to review these actions, at least preliminarily, especially when they affect large groups of people who had been granted parole.
The litigation has unfolded in multiple courts, with some issuing preliminary injunctions to halt the termination of parole programs temporarily. For example, a district court in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction in April 2025, staying parts of the termination order and certifying a class of affected noncitizens. This injunction was challenged and partially stayed by the Supreme Court, which has instructed lower courts to tailor relief narrowly to those plaintiffs with standing. The ongoing appeals and remands reflect the complexity and evolving nature of the legal battles.
At the state level, several states have filed lawsuits arguing that the Biden administration’s parole policies impose costs on state resources, including education
