Federal Court Blocks DHS Suspension of Humanitarian Parole
Federal Court Blocks DHS Suspension of Humanitarian Parole Adjudications: What It Means for Immigrant Families
By James Larsen, Managing Attorney
Posted on May 30, 2025
On May 28, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a pivotal ruling in Svitlana Doe et al. v. Noem et al. that temporarily blocks the Biden administration’s attempts to halt key immigration parole programs. The decision grants preliminary relief to immigrant plaintiffs challenging sweeping policy changes that suspended adjudications under several humanitarian and family unity parole initiatives.
What Was the Lawsuit About?
The plaintiffs—immigrants lawfully present in the U.S. under various humanitarian parole programs—challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) suspension of:
- Re-parole applications for individuals already paroled into the U.S.
- Initial parole requests under the Military Parole in Place (MPIP) program.
- Immigration benefit applications submitted by individuals paroled under these programs.
These suspensions followed a series of executive orders and internal DHS directives issued by the Trump administration on January 20, 2025, which sought to restrict the use of humanitarian parole and initiate a rollback of categorical parole programs.
Who Is Affected?
The court’s ruling protects a broad class of individuals including:
- Ukrainians under the Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) parole process.
- Afghans paroled through Operation Allies Welcome.
- Nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela admitted under the CHNV programs.
- Beneficiaries of the Central American Minors (CAM) program and Family Reunification Parole (FRP) programs.
- Military family members under the MPIP program.
These individuals are often applying for re-parole, work authorization, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or adjustment of status while contributing to their communities and awaiting more permanent immigration relief.
What Did the Court Decide?
Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction preventing DHS from implementing the indefinite pause on adjudications. The court found:
- Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), particularly as DHS suspended adjudications without formal rulemaking and offered vague, insufficient justification.
- The agency’s actions caused real, irreparable harm—putting families at risk of separation, jeopardizing lawful status, and causing loss of work authorization.
- Plaintiffs have standing to sue, even if they are not guaranteed an immigration benefit, because DHS’s refusal to process their applications left them without a path forward.
- The court reaffirmed that while DHS has discretionary authority, it cannot categorically refuse to adjudicate applications or suspend entire programs without lawful procedures.
What Happens Next?
The injunction remains in place while litigation continues. Although DHS may still seek review by higher courts, the ruling provides temporary protection and a path forward for thousands of families. It also signals that courts will scrutinize abrupt and sweeping immigration policy changes—particularly those that bypass Congress and affect legally present immigrants.
What Should You Do If You’re Affected?
If you or a family member are currently:
- Waiting on a re-parole decision;
- Supporting a loved one under the MPIP or CAM program;
- A parolee affected by the CHNV, U4U, or FRP programs;
- Concerned about how recent DHS policy changes could affect your case—
We encourage you to speak with a qualified immigration attorney immediately. Your case may be impacted by this litigation, and timely legal advice is essential to protecting your status and future options.
At Larsen Immigration Law, we are monitoring developments in this case and related policies closely. We are here to support immigrant families navigating an uncertain and rapidly changing immigration landscape.
Contact us today to schedule a consultation.
Immigration law changes rapidly. This article is for informational purposes only, reflects the law as of its publication date, and may be superseded by later changes in the law, regulations or agency policy. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.La ley de inmigración cambia rápidamente. Este artículo es solo para fines informativos, refleja la ley a la fecha de su publicación y puede quedar superado por cambios posteriores en la ley, las regulaciones o las políticas de las agencias. No es asesoría legal, y leerlo no crea una relación abogado-cliente.