A federal judge ruled the Trump administration exceeded its authority by revoking legal status from nearly 900,000 migrants who entered the US through the CBP One app.
What the Court Decided
On March 31, 2026, Judge Allison Burroughs of the US District Court of Massachusetts ruled that the Department of Homeland Security overstepped its statutory authority when it terminated the parole status of thousands of migrants who had entered the United States through the CBP One app — a Biden-era programme that allowed asylum seekers at the southern border to schedule legal entry appointments.
In her decision, Judge Burroughs wrote that “the parole terminations exceeded the agency’s statutory authority and contradicted the procedures set forth in its own regulations.” The ruling restores legal status nationwide to individuals who received emails or other notifications from DHS cancelling their parole.
What Was CBP One — and What Happened to It?
From 2023 onward, the Biden administration required many asylum seekers to use the CBP One mobile app to schedule legal entry at the southern border. Roughly 900,000 migrants were admitted through this channel and granted two-year “parole” status — meaning they were temporarily shielded from deportation and authorised to work legally in the United States.
When Trump returned to office, his administration ended the programme entirely. Last April, CBP One participants received emails from DHS that read: “It is time for you to leave the United States.” Their work authorisations were simultaneously revoked. DHS repurposed the app to facilitate what it called “self-deportations.”
The administration justified the move by arguing that the Biden DHS had “abused the parole authority to allow millions of illegal aliens into the US,” which it said fuelled what it described as the worst border crisis in US history.
The Lawsuit and Who Brought It
The legal challenge was brought by the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts and three individual women directly affected by the parole terminations. They alleged that the administration’s actions were unlawful and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that governs how agencies can make and change policy.
Their lawsuit argued that because of the cancellation, migrants “went from living in the United States legally to being deemed ‘illegal aliens’ overnight.”
Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward, one of the organisations representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a clear rejection of an administration that has tried to erase lawful status for hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a button.”
“For many Venezuelan families, this decision brings long-awaited relief after months of fear and uncertainty,” said Carlina Velásquez, President of the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts.
What the Ruling Does — and Doesn’t — Guarantee
Tuesday’s decision is a significant legal victory, but it does not resolve the long-term situation for most CBP One participants. The programme only ever granted two-year parole status while individuals applied for asylum — meaning some have already seen that window close, and others will see their status expire in the coming months regardless of this ruling.
The Trump administration is widely expected to appeal. The White House has challenged virtually every major court ruling that has blocked its immigration agenda, and DHS did not respond to requests for comment in the immediate aftermath of the decision.
This ruling is part of a broader pattern: federal courts have now rejected the legal foundations of the administration’s immigration enforcement in case after case, from the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans to El Salvador, to the termination of humanitarian parole programmes like this one.
The Bigger Picture
The CBP One ruling lands at a moment of growing internal and external pressure on the Trump administration’s immigration programme. As reported by The New Republic and The Dispatch in recent days, senior White House officials — including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles — have privately flagged the deportation programme as a political liability ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Courts, meanwhile, are systematically narrowing the legal space in which the administration can operate. Whether those constraints translate into a meaningful change in policy — or simply redirect enforcement into new legal grey areas — remains to be seen.
Sources
- Kayla Epstein, Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Terminated Legal Status of Migrants Who Used US Entry App, BBC News, March 31, 2026. https://www.bbc.com
- US District Court of Massachusetts, Decision by Judge Allison Burroughs on CBP One Parole Terminations, March 31, 2026.
- Democracy Forward, Statement on CBP One Ruling, March 31, 2026. https://www.democracyforward.org
- Department of Homeland Security, Statement on CBP One and Parole Authority, 2026. https://www.dhs.gov
- American Immigration Council, What Is Parole and How Is It Used in the US Immigration System, 2024. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
- The New Republic, Trump Throws Stephen Miller Under the Bus in Surprise Show of Panic, March 2026. https://newrepublic.com
- The Dispatch, Stephen Miller Is (Virtually) Untouchable, March 18, 2026. https://thedispatch.com
- NPR, Trump Administration Ends CBP One App, Leaves Migrants in Limbo, January 2025. https://www.npr.org
- The New York Times, What Is CBP One? The App at the Centre of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com
- Reuters, Federal Courts and Trump Immigration Policy: A Running Tally of Legal Defeats, March 2026. https://www.reuters.com
