Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

On May 30, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration permission (at least for now) to end a Biden-era migrant parole program. It covers about 500,000 non-citizens now in the U.S. The order grants the government’s request for relief from an injunction blocking the president’s attempt to end this program, and it is good until any appeals are finally decided.

On March 25, 2025, Trump terminated the program, issuing a notice in the Federal Register, effectively removing the protected status of those previously covered by it. On April 14, an Obama-appointed federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking the president’s notice. The government then asked the First Circuit Court of Appeals to block the lower court’s order while the appeal proceeds. After the First Circuit denied the request, the Trump administration asked the US Supreme Court to step in.

On May 30, 2025, the High Court issued its response, granting the government relief from the district court’s stay and allowing the Trump administration to revoke parole for those who came to the US under the CHNV program. No explanation was given, and the order itself was just a single paragraph in length. What followed, however, was about seven more pages of dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, co-signed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

We’re joined now by Liberty Nation News Legal Affairs Editor Scott D. Cosenza, Esq., to make sense of the potentially confusing legal issue.

James Fite: Scott, the first thing that comes to mind in this case is the saying, “An administration that lives by the pen dies by the pen.” But, of course, that doesn’t quite seem to be true, now does it? Throughout his first term, Trump tried to end Barack Obama’s executive orders with executive orders of his own, only to find those actions challenged in court. Now, in his second term, the various policies of the Biden administration seem to have that same legal shield. If one president can create a policy or program out of thin air using an executive order – or, in this case, even without one – why can’t the next president just as easily erase it?

Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!

Scott D. Cosenza, Esq.: I’ll let Justice Jackson answer your question. She wrote, “At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgement regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the Government’s application would not have anything close to that kind of practical impact.”

Remember that these are not illegal immigrants – President Biden invited and encouraged them to come. While I think Trump has the lawful power to terminate the program, it’s not inconceivable that those induced to migrate here by the then-president may have some legal rights to assert in the process.

James: The Court’s ruling is only a few sentences, followed by a lengthy dissent. How unusual is it for a ruling to come down without any explanation for the reasoning behind it – or even for one being as short as the single paragraph we got yesterday? And what reasons might the majority rule without explanation like this?

Scott: The Court did not issue an opinion; it issued an order – these are often brief and ideally should be. Opinions in cases are important because when the majority discusses its reasoning, it gives guidance to all other courts when similar issues arise.

The dissent is from the order issued, and it is quite common for Justices to lay out the reasons why they differ from one – especially when it involves a controversial issue. We see this frequently from justices across issues and political affiliations. Justices writing in dissent may simply be venting or setting the stage for future rulings they hope to influence. Or they could be virtue signaling to their political allies.

James: Back to Jackson’s dissent. Assuming the administration wins and the CHNV parolees are no longer protected from deportation – what harm is done to the Trump administration by holding off those deportations until the case is resolved? For that matter, how likely does it seem that the administration would attempt to deport over 500,000 people?

Scott: To the second question – it seems unlikely, but that can’t be a source of comfort for anyone who relies on the CHNV parole program to live here. Regarding the harm, I think the administration could easily point to a dozen different harms, from impacts on law enforcement and social services at the local, state, and federal levels, to the social services required to accommodate these immigrants. They are all likely significant cost/resource drains on our society across the board.

James: Lastly, let’s end – as we often do – with a bit of speculation. What do you think the final outcome will be once the case is decided?

Scott: Oh, it seems likely to me that the administration will lose in the District Court before Obama’s nominee. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has 11 judges in total: two Clinton appointees, three from Obama, and four Biden picks. There’s a George W. Bush appointee and, surprise, a Nixon appointee too – Judge Levin H. Campbell, at 98 years young, who still sits as a Senior Circuit Judge. I suspect the First Circuit will uphold the lower courts, and then the Supreme Court will reverse. I find the politicization of the courts terrible and likely to control the outcome here.