Well, here we are again—watching the political and judicial tennis match over who gets to decide what “compassion” looks like at the U.S. border. And surprise, surprise—the Supreme Court finally delivered a win for actual law and order, allowing the Trump administration to revoke Biden’s “everybody gets a pass” policy for over half a million people. That’s right, more than 500,000 so-called “temporary” guests from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who were given permission to live and work in the U.S. on Biden’s say-so are now finding out that “temporary” actually means temporary.
Now, let’s be clear about what just happened. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (who, let’s face it, doesn’t shy away from a fight) filed an emergency application to end this wide-open door policy. And the Supreme Court—perhaps weary of watching unelected lower-court judges play immigration czar—stepped in and said, “Yeah, this is fine.” The order was brief, to the point, and probably gave a few D.C. bureaucrats heartburn.
Cue the hand-wringing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, with a flourish of predictable melodrama, lamented the “devastating consequences” of ending the program. Devastating? You mean enforcing immigration law and not handing out legal status like Halloween candy? The horror! According to Jackson, the Court is basically committing a moral crime by putting the brakes on a program that was always meant to be a two-year parole, not a golden ticket to indefinite American residency.
Look, nobody’s gloating over human hardship here. But the rule of law is not some outdated relic we dust off when convenient. It’s the backbone of a functioning nation, and this whole CHNV parole mess was never about border control—it was about politics. Biden’s team saw a way to look “compassionate” while sidestepping the legislative process. Mayorkas used the parole authority to open the floodgates, requiring only a sponsor and a security check—because those always go smoothly, right?
Fast-forward to now, and what do we have? A court battle over whether the administration can just wave a wand and say, “Oops, our bad. Let’s pretend this never happened.” U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani tried to pump the brakes, saying the government couldn’t revoke all the statuses in one fell swoop without reviewing each case. Nice idea—if we had a few hundred thousand bureaucrats sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
Another *huge* win for President Trump on immigration. President Biden illegally let hundreds of thousands of people through the mass parole program (many States sued to stop the tide). With only two dissents, the Supreme Court is letting President Trump put a stop to it pic.twitter.com/hZfqnPV6Ro
— Eric W. (@EWess92) May 30, 2025
Solicitor General D. John Sauer laid it out clearly: Talwani didn’t even have the authority to block the move. Noem is operating under the same law that let Mayorkas open the door in the first place. It’s a legal seesaw, except this time, the weight of the Constitution tipped things the other way.
And let’s not overlook the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork: the Haitian Bridge Alliance, immigration rights activists, and a fleet of lawyers who suddenly discovered an emergency when the law didn’t go their way. They’re painting a picture of “mass expulsion” and “unemployable” migrants, as though enforcing our own laws is some kind of war crime. Never mind that these were never intended to be permanent residents. That was never the deal, and everyone knew it.
🚨 #BREAKING: SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP — allows him to revoke Biden legal status for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of “migrants”
MASSIVE win! 🔥
Trump can immediately start the deportation process of 400K Haitians, Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans brought in by Biden.
LFG!… pic.twitter.com/65wiqJLGXY
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 30, 2025
This entire debacle is a classic example of what happens when executive overreach crashes into judicial realism. The Trump administration is making a clear point here: America cannot survive on open-ended exceptions to its own immigration policies. There has to be a line, and finally, someone had the guts to draw it.
