On April 14, 2025, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, based in Boston, issued a ruling that temporarily blocks the Trump administration’s effort to revoke legal status for over 530,000 migrants who entered the country under a Biden-era immigration program.
The migrants—mostly from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—had been granted temporary legal entry through a humanitarian parole program known as CHNV, which allowed them to live and work in the U.S. for up to two years.
The program was created under President Biden and bypassed the usual immigration process by relying on executive authority instead of congressional approval.
Now, with President Donald Trump back in the White House, the administration has been working to unwind many of the policies put in place by the previous administration—including CHNV.
The Court’s Decision
In her 41-page opinion, Judge Talwani wrote that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated constitutional due process rights by attempting to cancel the parole status of all CHNV migrants without reviewing their cases individually.
The mass cancellation, she argued, could lead to unjust deportations and family separations without proper legal procedures.
The court’s order blocks deportations that were scheduled to begin April 24, giving migrants in the program a temporary reprieve while the case moves forward in court.
What Is the CHNV Program?
The CHNV parole program was launched by the Biden administration as a way to address growing instability in certain Latin American countries.
Under the program, eligible migrants from four nations could apply to enter the U.S. legally, provided they had a sponsor already living in the U.S.
Once approved, they were allowed to live and work here temporarily—but without any path to citizenship or permanent legal status.
Critics of the program have long argued that it was an abuse of executive authority, effectively allowing the president to admit hundreds of thousands of migrants into the country without Congress ever voting on it.
Many saw it as a backdoor amnesty that made an already overwhelmed immigration system even more chaotic.
The Trump Administration’s Position
President Trump and his team have made it clear that restoring border security and enforcing immigration law are top priorities in his second term.
That includes rolling back broad humanitarian programs like CHNV that were created without legislative input.
Trump officials argue that the mass cancellation of CHNV parole is legally justified and warranted to regain control of the southern border.
Allegations of Judicial Bias
Following Judge Talwani’s decision, some social media posts resurfaced alleging that she previously volunteered for Democratic campaigns, including those of Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren.
These claims suggest political bias in the ruling, though no credible evidence has confirmed her involvement in partisan activities.
It is publicly known that Talwani was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama in 2014, which has led some to question whether her decision was influenced by political leanings.
Still, without verifiable proof, those claims remain speculative.
Due Process vs. Executive Authority
While the Trump administration sees this ruling as a roadblock to fixing a flawed immigration policy, supporters of the decision argue it’s a necessary check on government power.
They claim that even temporary migrants have basic legal rights once admitted into the country.
Still, critics argue that these so-called protections are often used to delay enforcement and tie the hands of the executive branch, particularly when it attempts to rein in programs that were never properly authorized in the first place.
What Comes Next?
For now, the CHNV program survives, but the legal battle is far from over.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling and continue efforts to terminate the program as part of its broader immigration enforcement strategy.
This case also highlights the broader conflict between elected leadership and unelected judges—a recurring issue in recent years as immigration policy continues to bounce between the courtroom and the Oval Office.
Final Thought
Whether you support the CHNV program or not, immigration policy should not be decided by executive orders or courtrooms alone.
It’s time for Congress to step up, define clear rules, and end the cycle of presidents writing immigration policy on their own—and judges striking it down from the bench.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
