You can’t claim a collective benefit by fiat—and then have attorneys you’ve never met invoke individualized review to shield it from repeal.
Yet that’s precisely the strategy now being deployed against the Trump administration—in a Massachusetts courtroom.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction in a class action lawsuit, blocking the administration from terminating legal status and work permits for more than 530,000 foreign nationals—most of whom were flown directly into the U.S. interior under a Biden-era mass parole scheme known as CHNV.
The injunction, like the lawsuit behind it, is riddled with contradictions. The Biden administration granted status through a blanket policy with no individualized review—immigration by algorithm. The Trump administration is being told it cannot revoke that status without individualized review—in a class action demanding collectivized judicial relief for all.
The CHNV case exists in a kind of procedural superposition: simultaneously individualized, collective, and then individualized again—Schrödinger’s jurisdiction, engineered to collapse in whichever direction best obstructs enforcement.
It only makes sense within the twisted logic of the Resistance’s legal playbook.
A Benefit Granted Collectively, Revoked Individually—Then Blocked Collectively Again
The CHNV program—named for Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—was born of bureaucratic fiat, not a legislative mandate.
Under the Biden administration’s “safe and orderly pathways” scheme, migrants could apply for parole through the CBP One app, be pre-approved remotely, and be flown directly into the U.S. interior.
Vetting was minimal, and national security risks were shrugged off. Even the Biden administration was forced to pause the program in 2024 after admitting widespread fraud.
Yet now, one federal judge has issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration’s repeal of the program because parole status cannot be revoked “without case-by-case review.”
The program was created in bulk—immigration by algorithm—but now must be dismantled by hand. That’s the paradox of procedural lawfare: a collective benefit shielded from repeal by invoking the very due process it never afforded.
Worse still, the injunction arises from a class action—where plaintiffs seek collective relief—yet the court demands individualized adjudication before the executive may reverse that same collective policy.
It gets more Orwellian. The court’s ruling never mentions 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1)—which expressly bars class-wide injunctions in immigration enforcement actions, except by the Supreme Court. That statute was reaffirmed in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez (2022), which forbids lower courts from blocking federal officials from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out immigration law.
This ruling ignores that plain command—and manufactures procedural obstacles to justify its own.
And on what basis? The judge leans heavily on Administrative Procedure Act claims, asserting that the Trump administration’s termination of the program lacked sufficient explanation or process.
Yet the CHNV scheme never underwent formal rulemaking, APA scrutiny, or statutory authorization. Its creation was discretionary. Its revocation should be, too.
Here’s the magic trick the lawfare cartel is pulling: mass entitlement on the way in, procedural martyrdom on the way out.
Rule 23: The Resistance’s Favorite Weapon
The plaintiffs in this case didn’t arrive in court as individual claimants—they were assembled into a class, certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As my previous column detailed, this isn’t isolated.
But there’s something deeper at play. Class actions in immigration law don’t just empower plaintiffs—they empower political lawyers. Class counsel chooses the plaintiffs, defines the claims, and dictates the timing. They turn the courtroom into a war room. And when appellate courts push back, the leftist apparatchiks smear judges to delegitimize the outcome.
Now, they’ve added a twist. Once relief is granted collectively, they pivot—insisting the program can’t be unwound without individualized due process. It’s legal tommyrot: unity when seeking injunctions, atomization when resisting reform.
They want it both ways—and one judge just gave it to them.
One Judge, 530,000 Foreign Nationals
Buried beneath the headlines is a statutory landmine the court wholly ignored.
Talwani’s ruling doesn’t merely pause a Trump policy—it commandeers the executive branch.
By blocking the end of CHNV parole, the court has effectively ordered DHS to continue administering a program that Congress never authorized—one that even the Biden administration suspended after admitting rampant fraud. The policy had no grounding in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Now, the judiciary insists it must remain in place until every single alien receives an individualized hearing.
Over. Half. A. Million.
CHNV was not a discretionary benefit issued after interviews, vetting, or any meaningful humanitarian assessment. It was a mass-entry mechanism—facilitated by the CBP One app—that granted parole based almost entirely on digital paperwork. Applicants were flown directly into the U.S. interior without ever appearing before a border agent or immigration officer.
This wasn’t discretion. It was automation masquerading as executive action—more autopen than Article II.
And it gets worse. The program was riddled with fraud and abuse. In 2024, DHS was forced to pause CHNV after admitting widespread manipulation. The Government Accountability Office flagged the lack of verifiable identity data. Internal reviews revealed mass coordination via Telegram groups and smuggling networks.
Even the Biden administration conceded the system was being gamed.
Yet none of that seems to matter now.
The court compounds its error by treating self-deportation as a kind of civil rights injury. “If Plaintiffs leave the country on their own,” the judge wrote, “they will face dangers in their native countries” and may forfeit the chance to obtain relief under the APA.
But removal was always the natural endpoint of a parole program set to expire. To conflate parole expiration with asylum denial collapses distinct legal categories—and rewrites immigration law from the bench.
And all this comes from a single judge now playing nationwide immigration czar—monitoring DHS compliance, issuing national remedies, and doing so without even acknowledging 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which bars lower courts from enjoining immigration enforcement on a class-wide basis.
She has issued an order she cannot give, based on a process that never lawfully existed.
The Lawfare Cartel Is Calling the Shots
There’s something profoundly anti-democratic at work here.
These plaintiffs didn’t show up as individuals. They were constructed—assembled into a Rule 23 class, the progressive legal movement’s favorite procedural crowbar. Class actions in immigration law don’t empower people. They empower class counsel—activist operatives who pick the plaintiffs, frame the narrative, dictate the strategy, and choose the courtroom.
That courtroom becomes a war room. The law becomes leverage. If an appellate court dares to push back? The cartel shifts gears—smearing judges as cruel, corrupt, or worse. It’s not about protecting migrants. It’s about delegitimizing opposition, intimidating institutions, and above all, derailing any enforcement action taken by a duly elected president.
This Ruling Must Not Stand
The administration should appeal immediately, and Congress should consider new legislation clarifying that no entry granted en masse requires individualized review before deportation.
Class-wide injunctions in immigration cases are an unlawful—indeed unconstitutional—seizure of power in real time against the political branches that are answerable to the citizenry of the Republic.
And that’s not democracy. That’s usurpation.
Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC
image, Pixabay license.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.