Since the start of this Administration on January 20, 2025, 149 lawsuits have been filed against the current administration. Keeping track of what is happening with any given Executive Order, Presidential Memo or Presidential Action, can be confusing.
This blog post will focus on the current status of the following Executive actions and the challenges to these Executive Actions in our court system.
- Alien Registration
- Alien Enemies Act
- Cuban, Haitian, Nicaragua, and Venezuela Parole Program
Alien Registration:
On March 12, 2025, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued an interim final rule (“IFR”) to implement the Executive Order 134159, requiring that all unregistered foreign nationals comply with the registration and biometrics requirements. Failure to comply with the IFR would result in criminal penalties and a civil enforcement priority for removal. The IFR created a new form that would generate an “alien registration document” once completed.
On March 31, 2025, a group of various nonprofit member-based organizations sued alleging that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act as it was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. They also alleged that the rule did not follow the proper rulemaking process. The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction postponing the effective dates of the IFR and asking for a declaratory judgement that the IFR was unlawful.
On April 10, 2025, the District Court in D.C., denied the motion for the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs lacked organizational and associational standing. Please note, because the case was dismissed due to lack of standing, it did not reach the issue of whether the IFR was lawful.
As of today, the Alien Registration Act is in full effect and those who are subject to the IFR must comply with the registration requirement.
Alien Enemies Act:
On March 15, 2025, a Presidential Proclamation titled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua” was issued seeking to authorize the removal of noncitizens from Venezuela who are characterized as “enemy aliens” under the Alien Enemies Act due to their purported involvement with Tren De Aragua.
The original lawsuit that made the news, J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C), Case No. 1:25-cv-00766, (D.C. Cir No. 25-5067), was brought under the Administrative Procedures Act and asked for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to block any removals from the United States under this proclamation. This lawsuit was filed March 15, 2025.
While Chief Judge James Boasberg certified the class of “all noncitizens in US custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025 Presidential Proclamation” and granted the TRO until April 12, 2025, the Supreme Court vacated the order. In a 5-4 decision on April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court found that the legal challenge should have been brought as a habeas case. However, the Court did acknowledge that “notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
The latest Court actions filed on April 8 in the Southern District of New York and in the Southern District of Texas, involved Venezuelan individuals who filed a habeas petition asking the Court to stop the government from removing them and declaring the Proclamation unlawful.
On April 10, 2025, the Southern District of New York Court certified the class and granted a temporary restraining order. Both Courts have temporarily blocked the Government from removing these two individuals and others similarly situated in the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Texas through April 23, 2025.
Please note, this litigation is separate from the D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (D. Mass.), Case No. 1:25-cv-10676, First Circuit Case No. 25-1311, which challenges deportation/removal to a third country in general. DVD is a challenge to a February 28, 2025, policy directive to officers instructing them to review the possibility of removal to a third country. The Plaintiffs in DVD sued stating this directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, and the Constitution. On March 28, 2025, the federal judge on the case agreed to temporarily block this practice of removal to a third country, especially without written notice and a meaningful opportunity to present the fear-based claim.
CHNV Parole and Other categorical parole programs:
On January 20, 2025, after taking office, the current administration issued an Executive Order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate all categorical parole programs. Specifically, it called for the end of the Parole programs for Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), Parole Processes for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV), and Operation Allies Welcome (OAW).
On March 25, 2025, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register, terminating the CHNV parole programs and terminating individuals’ Employment Authorization Document effective April 24, 2025.
Plaintiffs in Doe v. Noem (D. Mass.), Case No. 1:25-cv-10495 (February 28 2025), filed a lawsuit on February 28, 2025 challenging the initial executive order and an internal memo asking for a pause on the adjudication of all applications filed by these parolees. On March 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Seconded Amended Complaint challenging the March 25th Federal Register Notice. At the same time, they filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction and administrative stay on the termination of parole processes.
On April 14, 2025, the District Court in Massachusetts issued a class certification, certifying:
all individuals who have received a grant of parole that is subject to the Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025), rescinding individual grants of parole on a categorical and en masse basis, except: (1) those individuals who voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to the issuance of that Notice; and (2) those individuals who choose to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate litigation.
Doe v. Noem (D. Mass.), Case No. 1:25-cv-10495 (February 28 2025).
The court also granted a stay or temporary restraining order temporarily blocking the government’s notices revoking the parole without case-by-case review prior to the originally stated parole end date.
In Conclusion:
While these court cases have been issued, the state of these Executive actions are still in flux. The issuance of the restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are helpful, but we still need Court decisions to determine whether these actions are lawful or not.
Please reach out to the attorneys at Kolko & Casey, PC to learn more whether these or any other executive actions impact your eligibility for an immigration benefit.
About the Author
Petula McShiras is a Senior Associate Attorney at Kolko & Casey, P.C. Petula specializes in employment based, naturalization and family based immigration matters.
