Introduction
The article by CNN claims that the Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to suspend a Biden-era parole program that provided temporary legal protection to hundreds of thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This raised questions about whether the original program under Biden conducted proper case-by-case reviews before granting parole or simply instituted broad protections without careful vetting—a central point of debate in this immigration policy shift.
Historical Context
The United States’ use of “humanitarian parole” dates back at least to the 1950s, when President Eisenhower used it to admit Hungarian refugees. The parole power, under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, gives the executive branch authority to admit individuals on a temporary basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Over time, different administrations interpreted this authority variously—sometimes broadly for large groups and sometimes narrowly for individuals. The Biden-era program drew from this precedent but applied new safeguards, while the Trump administration argued these kinds of broad designations exceeded statutory authority.
Fact Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: The Biden-era parole program granted status after “case-by-case review.”
The article suggests that the Biden program was not a blanket approval system, stating that applicants “were required to have an American sponsor and clear security vetting.” DHS documentation confirms this. According to a January 2023 statement from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), applicants from the four countries had to apply online with a sponsor vetted through background checks and agree to security screening, biographic and biometric vetting, and health assessments. This indicates individual screening took place, fulfilling the legal requirement of case-by-case analysis.
The Department of Homeland Security explicitly stated: “Each parole request is considered individually, on a case-by-case basis.” This undermines the Trump administration’s claim that the program bypassed proper review. However, critics argue the scale of approvals diluted the intent of individual discretion. Nonetheless, no evidence confirms systematic blanket approvals without review.
Claim #2: The Trump administration can suspend parole status without individual review.
Under immigration law, the Secretary of Homeland Security does have broad authority over parole—but the law requires parole decisions to be made “only on a case-by-case basis.” The courts found that while the Secretary can initiate policy changes, a sweeping termination without reviewing each case contradicts this statutory requirement.
Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the administration could end individual statuses only through a case-by-case process. Appellate judges also signaled skepticism about blanket cancellations. Thus, while the administration has legal power to end the program over time, it cannot revoke previously granted parole en masse without violating immigration law.
Claim #3: The Supreme Court ruling allows the Trump administration to begin deportation for over 500,000 migrants.
The CNN article notes the ruling “will allow the administration to expedite deportations for an estimated 530,000 migrants.” While the Supreme Court did lift the injunction against ending the program, the underlying merits of the legal case are still being litigated in lower courts. This makes the statement somewhat misleading in tone.
According to USCIS data as of April 2025, approximately 537,000 individuals had been paroled under the program. However, whether each of them will be deported depends on their eligibility for other protections (e.g., asylum, TPS, adjustment of status). The ruling allows the administration to start canceling parole, but it does not directly authorize mass deportations without further legal process for each individual case.
Thus, the figure mentioned is accurate demographically, but the article could provide more context about legal protections that remain for many of those individuals.
Claim #4: The Supreme Court’s emergency order had no explanation or precedent behind it.
The article states, “the court’s brief order was not signed and…did not offer any reasoning.” This is correct. Emergency or “shadow docket” rulings often lack full explanations or opinions. These unsigned decisions are legally binding but tend to draw criticism for limiting transparency. Legal experts, including Professor Stephen Vladeck, have highlighted the increasing use of such orders without detailed justification, particularly in immigration and COVID-19 response cases. Therefore, this description is factually accurate and contextually supported.
Conclusion
Our analysis confirms that the article is mostly accurate in its reporting on the parole program and the Supreme Court’s recent decision. The Biden-era program did include individual vetting and sponsor mechanisms, countering the Trump administration’s portrayal of it as a “blanket policy.” The Supreme Court did issue a legally binding unsigned emergency order, which aligns with current judicial practices, albeit controversial. However, the article could be clearer in communicating that mass deportation is not immediately guaranteed, as legal protections are still accessible for many migrants. Additionally, CNN provided limited detail on the legal justification of the Biden approach, risking an oversimplified narrative.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to verify more claims like this? Download the DBUNK app and stay ahead of misinformation. Join our mission to rebuild trust in the news by following us on social media and submitting your own fact-check requests for free.
