Doe v. Noem
N/A (2025)
Rule of Law:
The Immigration and Nationality Act's requirement that parole be granted "only on a case-by-case basis" applies to the granting of parole, not its termination. The Executive Branch may categorically terminate a parole program, including revoking existing parole grants, provided the decision is not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Facts:
- Under the Biden Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created parole programs for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV).
- These programs allowed eligible individuals, after individual vetting, to receive discretionary grants of parole to enter and work in the United States for a period of up to two years.
- Between October 2022 and January 2025, approximately 532,000 individuals received grants of parole under the CHNV programs.
- In October 2024, DHS under the Biden Administration announced it would not renew or extend parole periods beyond the initial two-year grant.
- On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order No. 14165, directing the Secretary of DHS to terminate all categorical parole programs, including the CHNV programs.
- On March 25, 2025, DHS published a "Termination Notice" announcing the immediate end of the CHNV programs.
- The notice stated that all existing grants of parole under the programs would be terminated on April 24, 2025, well before the original two-year expiration date for many recipients.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a group of CHNV parolees, filed a lawsuit against the Government in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and a stay of the DHS Termination Notice.
- The district court certified a class of affected individuals and granted a stay, which temporarily blocked DHS from revoking the previously granted parole and work authorizations.
- The Government (Defendants-Appellants) appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The First Circuit initially denied the Government's motion to stay the district court's order pending the appeal.
- The Government applied to the Supreme Court, which granted a stay of the district court's order pending the outcome of the appeal in the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Department of Homeland Security's categorical, en masse termination of previously granted parole under the CHNV parole programs violate the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Administrative Procedure Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Gelpí, Circuit Judge
No. The Department of Homeland Security's categorical termination of the CHNV parole programs does not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Administrative Procedure Act. The INA's statutory text and legislative history demonstrate that the 'case-by-case' requirement applies only to the granting of parole, not its termination. The termination clause grants broad discretion to the Secretary, allowing parole to be ended 'when the purposes of such parole shall, in [her] opinion . . . have been served,' without specifying an individualized process. Furthermore, the termination was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The agency's justification for early termination—preserving its ability to use expedited removal proceedings—was based on a plausible, though not the only, interpretation of the relevant statute and thus was not a clear legal error. DHS also satisfied the APA's requirements for a change in policy by providing a reasoned explanation, acknowledging the policy change, and adequately considering the reliance interests of the parolees, even if it ultimately weighed competing policy concerns more heavily.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant discretionary authority of the Executive Branch in implementing and rescinding immigration parole policies. It establishes a key precedent that the statutory constraints on granting parole do not equally apply to its revocation, allowing a new administration to quickly and categorically unwind the parole programs of a prior one. The ruling also highlights the high degree of deference courts afford to agencies under the APA's 'arbitrary and capricious' standard, confirming that an agency action can survive judicial review even if its legal reasoning is debatable, so long as it is plausible and the agency considers relevant factors like reliance interests. This will make future legal challenges against the mass revocation of discretionary immigration benefits more difficult.
