A federal judge in Boston has stepped into a heated immigration policy dispute, announcing intentions to temporarily block the Trump administration's move to end a program protecting thousands of family members of U.S. citizens and green card holders.
On Friday, January 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani stated during a hearing that she expects to issue a temporary restraining order against the termination of the Family Reunification Parole (FRP) program, which shields over 10,000 individuals from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras, with protections set to expire by January 14, 2026.
Judge Talwani didn’t hold back in questioning the government’s approach, acknowledging its authority to end the FRP program but sharply criticizing how it was handled. She demanded evidence that affected individuals received direct written notice, such as letters or emails, beyond a mere federal registry posting, according to The Hill.
The government, represented by lawyer Katie Rose Talley, defended the move with a blunt stance. “Parole can be terminated at any time. That is what is being done,” Talley argued, insisting the action was lawful.
Yet, that cold legalism misses the human cost. Families who relied on FRP, established under the prior Biden administration, have built lives here—jobs, schools, stability—only to face abrupt uncertainty.
Many see this as part of a broader push by the administration to roll back temporary protections for various migrant groups as part of a larger immigration crackdown.
Plaintiffs in the case, five in total, are pushing for any ruling to cover all FRP participants, and their motion paints a vivid picture of dashed hopes. “Although in a temporary status, these parolees did not come temporarily; they came to get a jump-start on their new lives in the United States,” their filing stated.
The motion continues, noting these individuals often brought immediate family, secured work permits, and enrolled children in schools. Now, they’re left hanging by a policy reversal from the Department of Homeland Security late last year.
Such stories clash with the administration’s claim that resources are better spent elsewhere. If national security is the concern, as they argue, shouldn’t proper vetting be the fix rather than mass termination?
The government doubled down, asserting that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem holds full authority to end any parole program. They claimed the federal registry notice was sufficient and argued that unvetted individuals posed risks.
But where’s the evidence of this supposed danger? Lower courts have often sided with maintaining protections for migrant groups, as seen in a recent ruling allowing hundreds from South Sudan to stay legally.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s mixed signals—clearing the way last May to strip protections for nearly a million migrants while facing dissent from two justices—show even the highest bench isn’t fully aligned with the administration’s hardline stance.
Judge Talwani’s own words cut to the heart of the dilemma. “I have a group of people who are trying to follow the law,” she said, urging the U.S. to uphold its values.
Her point resonates: these aren’t folks gaming the system but families chasing the American dream under rules they were told to trust. If the government can yank the rug out without proper notice, what’s the point of any promise?
As this legal battle unfolds, it’s clear the FRP fight is a microcosm of a larger clash over immigration policy. The administration’s push for control and security must be weighed against the very real lives upended by sudden policy shifts. Let’s hope the courts find a path that honors both law and humanity.
