Filed Date: March 24, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges the federal government’s alleged sudden shift in immigration policy, threatening to subject thousands of legally paroled immigrants, including families fleeing violence and persecution, to fast-track deportation without basic due process. On March 24, 2025, three immigrant advocacy organizations, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), UndocuBlack Network, and CASA, Inc., filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs named President Donald Trump, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the agency heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") as defendants. The plaintiffs challenged various policies under the Trump administration of expanding expedited removal of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who entered the country legally through humanitarian parole processes. Represented by nonprofit counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that these policies violated the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and the Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the administration from unlawfully applying expedited removal procedures to individuals who had previously been granted lawful entry into the United States under humanitarian parole programs. This case was assigned to District Judge Jia M. Cobb.
The plaintiffs argued that the government’s actions violated statutory limits on expedited removal by targeting noncitizens who had been lawfully paroled into the United States—individuals whom the INA expressly excludes from expedited removal. The plaintiffs also claimed the policy was arbitrary and capricious under the APA and deprived their members of constitutional due process protections. The plaintiffs requested a preliminary and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the new policies, as well as vacatur of agency memoranda and orders, and attorneys’ fees.
The events giving rise to the lawsuit began shortly after President Trump returned to office in January 2025. On January 20, he issued Executive Order 14165, “Securing Our Borders,” directing the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") to terminate categorical humanitarian parole programs, such as those for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela ("CHNV") and for Afghan and Ukrainian evacuees. In the days following the order, Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine C. Huffman issued several internal memoranda to ICE, USCIS, and U.S. Customs & Border Patrol implementing a drastic reinterpretation of the INA’s parole authority and expanding the scope of expedited removal. On January 21, Huffman issued a Federal Register notice (90 Fed. Reg. 8139) that expanded expedited removal nationwide to noncitizens unable to prove two years of continuous presence. On January 23, Huffman instructed personnel to consider using expedited removal against any eligible noncitizen, even those already paroled and residing in the U.S. On February 18, ICE issued a further directive, leaked to the press, stating that there was “no time limit” on applying expedited removal to “paroled arriving aliens,” a stance in direct contradiction with previous federal guidance limiting expedited removal to recent entrants without lawful status.
On March 21, DHS posted a notice for publication in the Federal Register that officially terminated the CHNV parole processes and declared that all CHNV parolees would lose their status en masse after 30 days. The notice acknowledged that many parolees would no longer be eligible for expedited removal after reaching two years of continuous presence, and thus justified the early termination as a means to enable their rapid deportation. This notice conflicted with the earlier February directive, sowing confusion about the applicable rules and timelines. The plaintiffs’ complaint emphasized the harm to their members, many of whom had entered through legal pathways like CBP One or were sponsored under parole programs and had applied for work permits, Temporary Protected Status ("TPS"), or asylum. The organizations detailed several members’ stories, including an Afghan man fearing execution if returned, a Haitian mother trying to care for her sick son, and families from Venezuela and Guatemala escaping political violence and persecution. All faced an imminent risk of sudden removal without a hearing.
The lawsuit asserted three main legal claims: (1) the unlawful application of expedited removal to paroled individuals under the INA; (2) violations of the APA for arbitrary and inconsistent agency action; and (3) deprivation of constitutional due process under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs requested that the court declare the challenged policies unlawful, vacate them, enjoin their enforcement, and award attorneys’ fees.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Karma Karira (4/1/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69781698/parties/coalition-for-humane-immigrant-rights-v-noem/
Sung, Esther H. (District of Columbia)
Tumlin, Karen C. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69781698/coalition-for-humane-immigrant-rights-v-noem/
Last updated April 28, 2025, 1:14 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 24, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA): Nonprofit, membership-based immigrant rights organization. UndocuBlack Network: Nonprofit, membership-based organization. CASA, Inc.: National nonprofit membership organization.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
Customs and Border Protection (- United States (national) -), Federal
Customs and Border Protection (- United States (national) -), Federal
United States of America (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: