Amicus Curiae Brief — Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Applicants v. Svitlana Doe, et al.

Supreme Court briefMay 16, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 24A1079

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,

Applicants,

Svitlana Doe, et al.,

Respondents.

BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF

INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS (“AFL-CIO”) AND AFFILIATED UNIONS

SEIU, UFCW, UAW, UNITE HERE, IUPAT, IUE-CWA, AND BAC

AS AMICI CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR STAY

Matthew Ginsburg

Andrew Lyubarsky

Counsel of Record

AFL-CIO

815 Black Lives Matter Plaza, NW

Washington, DC 20006

alyubarsky@aflcio.org

(202) 637-5115

David Zimmer

ZIMMER, CITRON & CLARKE LLP

130 Bishop Allen Drive

Cambridge, MA 02139

dzimmer@zimmercitronclarke.com

(617) 676-9421

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Steven K. Ury

Service Employees International Union

1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 730-7168

Counsel for Amicus Curiae SEIU

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................... 4

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 7

The Abrupt Rescission of CHNV Parole and Parolees’ Work Authorization

Would Generate Chaos in American Workplaces, Impact Production and

Harm American Workers. ................................................................................... 7

II.

The Disruption The Blanket Rescission of CHNV Parole Would Cause To

U.S. Workers and Employers Weighs Against a Stay in Two Ways............... 13

The Blanket Rescission of CHNV Was Arbitrary and Capricious

Because It Failed To Consider The Economic Disruption Caused by

DHS’s Actions. ................................................................................................... 14

The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Militate Strongly

Against a Stay of the District Court’s Order .............................................. 21

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro,

579 U.S. 211 (2016) .................................................................................................. 15

F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,

556 U.S. 502 (2009) .................................................................................................. 15

Hilton v. Braunskill,

481 U.S. 770 (1987) .................................................................................................. 22

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

463 U.S. 29 (1983) .............................................................................................. 14, 16

Nken v. Holder,

556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................................................................ 7, 14, 22

Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB,

467 U.S. 883 (1984) .................................................................................................... 4

Vaca v. Sipes,

386 U.S. 171 (1967)…………………...……………………………………………………..4

Statutes and Regulations

8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(2). ................................................................................................... 20

8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(8)................................................................................................ 19

8 C.F.R. § 274a.14(a).................................................................................................... 20

8 C.F.R. § 274a.14(b).................................................................................................... 20

DHS, “Implementation of a Parole Process for Haitians,” 88 Fed. Reg. 1243, 1244

(Jan. 9, 2023) ............................................................................................................ 18

DHS, “Implementation of a Parole Process for Venezuelans,” 87 Fed. Reg. 63507,

63508 (Oct. 19, 2022)................................................................................................ 18

DHS, “Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and

Venezuelans,” 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025)................................. 6, 15, 16, 19

Other Authorities

Fwd.Us, “Industries with critical labor shortages added hundreds of thousands of

workers through immigration parole,” (March 26, 2025),

https://www.fwd.us/news/immigration-labor-shortages ......................................... 13

Pete Muntean et al., “Inside the Multi-Day Meltdown at Newark Airport,” CNN.com

(May 6, 2025), https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/06/us/inside-the-multi-daymeltdown-at-newark-airport ................................................................................... 22

Steve Eder, Danielle Ivory & Marcela Valdes, The Hidden Truth Linking the Broken

Border to Your Online Shopping Cart, N.Y. Times (Nov. 17, 2024),

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/immigration-undocumented-migrantsjobs.html?referringSource=audio-landing-page ...................................................... 12

iii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1

The American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial

Organizations (“AFL-CIO”) is a federation of 63 national and international labor

organizations with a total membership of over 15 million working men and women

who are employed in every sector of this country. All seven other amici are labor

organizations affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

The Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) is a labor

organization of approximately two million diverse members who work in the

healthcare industry, state and local government, and in property service industries,

such as janitors, security officers, airport workers, retail, distribution, laundry, and

fast food workers, and adjunct professors, throughout the United States, Canada,

and Puerto Rico. SEIU’s members include foreign-born U.S. citizens, lawful

permanent residents, and immigrants authorized to work in the United States.

SEIU estimates that hundreds of its members—primarily though not exclusively in

its airport service contractor sector—are CHNV parolees.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

(“UFCW”) is a private sector union that represents over 1.2 million people across

the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. In the United States and Puerto Rico,

UFCW represents over 900,000 workers. A significant number of UFCW members

work in the meatpacking and food processing industries in the United States.

1 It is hereby certified that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in

part; and that no person other than these amici curiae, their members, or their

counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.

Moreover, a great portion of UFCW members employed in these industries are

individuals who have received status through the CHNV parole program. Revoking

their parole will not only adversely affect parolees, but also the people they work

alongside, the companies that rely on their valuable labor and the communities that

rely on the vitality of these companies.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and

Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”) is one of the largest and

most diverse unions in North America, with members in virtually every sector of the

economy. UAW-represented workplaces range from multinational corporations,

small manufacturers and state and local governments to colleges and universities,

hospitals and private non-profit organizations. UAW has more than 400,000 active

members and more than 580,000 retired members in the United States, Canada and

Puerto Rico. UAW represents a significant number of CNHV parolees in the

manufacturing sector who would be impacted by the abrupt termination of the

program.

UNITE HERE is an international labor union that primarily represents

workers in the hotels, casino gaming and food service industries, and has

approximately 270,000 members in the United States. Service jobs in the

hospitality industry attract new immigrants as they arrive and seek work

opportunities in United States, and as a result, UNITE HERE’s membership

includes many immigrants who are temporarily authorized to work in the United

States, including through CHNV parole. Those members and the employees who

work with them will be impacted by the termination of the CHNV parole program.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (“IUPAT”)

proudly represents 140,000 workers in the finishing trades across the United States

and Canada. IUPAT members work in dozens of trades, primarily industrial

painters, commercial and decorative painters, drywall finishers, glaziers and glass

workers, sign and display workers, trade show workers, floor covering installers,

and many more successful careers in the construction industry and beyond. These

trades are attractive to immigrants seeking to establish productive work lives in the

United States. The ranks of IUPAT’s membership include many individuals from

Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who are authorized to work in this country

because of CHNV parole. IUPAT’s signatory contractor partners and their brothers

and sisters in the union rely on the skills these members bring to their jobsites.

Their sudden absence due to withdrawn work authorization could impact the

progress of multiple construction projects across the country.

The International Union of Electrical Workers-Communications

Workers of America (“IUE-CWA”) is the Industrial Division of the

Communications Workers of America (“CWA”). The Union represents 40,000

workers across the country in a wide range of manufacturing industries. IUE-CWA

represents employees at least two factories in the Midwest where significant

number of members are CHNV parolees. The Administration’s efforts to abruptly

terminate CHNV parole has been highly disruptive to the workforce in these

locations and to IUE-CWA members’ lives.

The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers

(“BAC”) represents 70,000 workers in the masonry trades across the United States

and Canada. These skilled craftworkers include bricklayers, stone and marble

masons, cement masons, plasterers, tilesetters, terrazzo and mosaic workers, and

pointers/cleaners/caulkers. BAC’s membership includes many individuals from

Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who are authorized to work in this country

because of CHNV parole. The signatory contractors who employ BAC members rely

on the skills that these individuals bring to their jobsites to help build their

communities. Their sudden absence due to withdrawn work authorization could

have an immediate impact on the progress of multiple construction projects across

the country.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Amici are labor unions representing workers across a wide spectrum of

industries, including the automotive, manufacturing, airport service contracting,

construction, meatpacking, and hospitality sectors. Our members are American

citizens and non-citizens. The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) mandates

that unions comply with a duty of fair representation and provide equitable,

zealous, and non-discriminatory advocacy for all of their members, regardless of

their immigration status. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177–78 (1967); Sure-Tan,

Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 891–92 (1984) (NLRA provides rights to all employees

regardless of immigration status).

Amici’s members hold a wide variety of immigration statuses that provide

work authorization. They are lawful permanent residents and non-immigrant visa

holders, temporary protected status (“TPS”) beneficiaries and asylees. And

thousands of them are parolees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela

(“CHNV parolees”) whose right to work is tied to their parole status. These parolees

entered the country lawfully by invitation of a U.S. sponsor, are lawfully present in

this country, are lawfully authorized to work at the facilities where amici represent

workers, and lawfully went through the I-9 verification process provided for in the

Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) and its implementing regulations.

They are also among the workers to whom unions owe this duty of fair

representation.

Each CHNV parolee was permitted to enter the country and remain here for

a period of two years. During their time in this country, they have worked shoulderto-shoulder with their U.S.-citizen co-workers in industries critical to our Nation’s

economic and national security.

On March 25, 2025, all this changed. Rather than wait for each parolee’s twoyear term to end, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a

notice abruptly terminating the CHNV program, rescinding all existing grants of

CHNV parole with a 30-day wind-down period, and initiating processes to revoke

work authorization from hundreds of thousands of CHNV parolees. DHS,

“Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and

Venezuelans,” 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025) (hereinafter, the “Federal

be by far the largest single-day revocation of work authorization in our Nation’s

history—one that DHS initiated with effectively no notice to employers or the U.S.

workers who would be impacted by the disruptive effect of the FRN.

Amici submit this brief to highlight the unprecedented disruption that such

an immediate, blanket revocation of CHNV parole status would wreak on the U.S.

workforce. For instance, as discussed in more detail below, amici UAW and IUECWA report that the sudden loss of hundreds or thousands of CHNV parolee

workers would exacerbate labor shortages, forcing employers to both cut shifts that

can no longer be staffed and force overtime work for many U.S. workers. Indeed, at

least one manufacturing facility would have lost nearly twenty percent of its

workforce absent the district court’s stay order. In addition, amicus SEIU reports

that the summary dismissal of CHNV parolees in essential airport service roles—

including airport security personnel, wheelchair operators, cabin cleaners, and

baggage handlers—would lead to disruptions in airport operations, harming the

interests of U.S. workers and passengers alike. Staying the district court’s order in

this case would bring about these and many more disruptions across many

industries and facilities around the country.

The disruption that would be wrought by allowing the FRN to take effect in

full impacts two questions before this Court. First, regardless of the merits of the

CHNV program in its conception, DHS’s failure to consider the dramatic impact of

summarily rescinding hundreds of thousands of work permits on a single day with

virtually no notice on American workers, employers, and unions renders its abrupt

and wholesale rescission arbitrary and capricious. Thus, respondents are likely to

succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act

(“APA”). Second, the immense strain the FRN will place on unions and employers

alike means that the balance of the equities and the public interest—two key factors

to consider in determining whether a stay is justified, Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418,

435–36 (2009)—tilt sharply against the government.

Amici thus urge the Court to deny the government’s emergency application

for a stay.

ARGUMENT

The Abrupt Rescission of CHNV Parole and Parolees’ Work

Authorization Would Generate Chaos in American Workplaces,

Impact Production and Harm American Workers.

Amici are uniquely positioned to assess the impact of DHS’s FRN on the

workplace. Between March 25, when the FRN was issued without notice-andcomment from affected stakeholders, and April 14, when the mass rescission of

CHNV parole was stayed by the district court, amici endured three weeks of chaos

and confusion among the workers they represent and the employers with whom

they bargain. Amici’s CHNV parolee members—even those who were eligible for or

had applied for another immigration benefit— feared abrupt job loss and

destitution. And amici’s other members—U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents,

or non-citizens with non-CHNV-related work authorization—prepared for punishing

work conditions including excessive mandatory overtime on the one hand, and, on

the other, the potential for layoffs if employers were no longer able to meet

consumer demand as a result of a sudden reduction in staffing.

This phenomenon was particularly pronounced in the manufacturing sector,

where labor shortages continue to be rampant. For instance, UAW represents

approximately 800 workers at a tier-one automotive parts facility; this facility

supplies auto assembly plants that employ thousands of manufacturing workers

throughout the Midwest. After the FRN issued, the employer advised that at least

150 of these members were CHNV parolees who would have to be summarily

terminated based on the FRN within 30 days’ time. In other words, the parts facility

stood to lose nearly 20% of its workers in less than a month.

CHNV parolees at this facility perform skilled, physically-demanding work in

an area of the country that is experiencing a workforce shortage. Turnover among

U.S. workers in this region was high, and CHNV parolees provided the employer

with a stable, reliable workforce. Had the district court not intervened to stay the

FRN in relevant part, U.S. workers would have had to perform more work for longer

hours, thus generating an increased health and safety risk. And still, the facility as

a whole would struggle to cover gaps across departments and shifts. As a result of

overwork, quality of the product manufactured in this facility would suffer,

potentially endangering existing and future contracts with auto manufacturers.

IUE-CWA’s experience is similar. IUE-CWA represents approximately 6,000

employees at a large manufacturing facility that produces home appliances in the

Midwest. After the FRN was issued, the employer advised that approximately 200

IUE-CWA-represented employees were CHNV parolees and would be terminated

following the FRN’s 30-day wind-down period.

Even prior to DHS’s decision to abruptly terminate CHNV parole, IUE-CWA

reports that this facility had approximately 150 unfilled positions, and that the

employer had eliminated a shift due to lack of labor. And despite the district court’s

stay order, the employer announced that it was imposing mandatory overtime on all

workers, requiring them to work 9 hours per day, until further notice, in order to

meet its production needs. The precipitous loss of 200 additional employees would

only exacerbate this situation. 2 Ultimately, only the district court’s stay order is

keeping these manufacturing workers on the jobs—and preserving the jobs and

working conditions of these two unions’ other workers.

In pure numbers, however, it is likely that UFCW’s meatpacking and food

processing workers were set to suffer the greatest exposure as a result of DHS’s

abrupt parole-and-work-authorization termination decision. UFCW estimates that

there are nearly 25,000 parolees working at the plants where it represents

workers. 3 The sudden removal of this many workers from the workforce would

2 IUE-CWA reports a similar situation at another facility in the energy

manufacturing sector where it represents approximately 1,000 employees, at least

40 of whom are CHNV parolees. In this facility, too, IUE-CWA reports that there

are roughly 100 open positions and bargaining unit members have had to work,

collectively, 192,000 hours of mandatory overtime in the past year. The sudden

termination of 40 additional employees would only make this situation worse.

3 UFCW is unable to determine, with exactitude, the number of individuals from

Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who are employed because they are CHNV

likely cause disruptions to production in these industries comparable to the

disruptions experienced during the COVD-19 pandemic.

In addition to disruptions in production, other UFCW members working in

these plants would suffer serious deterioration in their terms and conditions of

employment. For example, in UFCW’s experience, meatpacking and food processing

employers in the mid-South region have had difficulty hiring workers to satisfy

productivity demands. When these plants are short on manpower, employers slow

down production to account for lower man-hours and schedule workers for less than

40 hours a week, resulting in decreased pay. Workers continue to face pressure to

meet production goals, yet must do so with shorter work hours. Additionally,

operating with a reduced workforce also means greater safety concerns for workers

in an already dangerous industry. In the Mid-South region alone, UFCW estimates

that roughly 2,000 workers in the poultry industry could be exposed to greater risk.

Again, only the district court’s stay order has avoided generating a crisis situation in

this industry.

The harms experienced by amici were not limited to manufacturing and food

processing. In addition to its members who work in healthcare, janitorial, and

healthcare services, SEIU represents a wide array of employees employed by service

contractors at our Nation’s airports, including cabin cleaners, airport security

parolees, and the number who may have received parole on some other basis, such

as after being inspected by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer at a land

port of entry during an appointment made using the CBP ONE application. At any

rate, UFCW is confident that thousands of its parolee members are CHNV parolees.

officers, wheelchair attendants, and baggage handlers. These essential personnel

monitor airports for potential threats, keep passengers safe, and ensure the timely

operation of flights, during a time when air travel is under significant stress.

Following publication of the FRN, airport service contractors advised SEIU

that approximately 300-500 of its workers in airports in the New York/New Jersey

metropolitan area, 60-100 workers in airports in the Boston metropolitan area, and

50-100 workers in West Coast airports were likely CHNV parolees and at risk of

termination. 4 Due to the confusion generated by the FRN, some employers took

premature, unnecessary, and in some cases unlawful actions against CHNV

parolees, seeking to terminate workers prior to the Employment Authorization

Document (“EAD”) revocation date in violation of SEIU’s collective bargaining

agreements. Other employers worked collaboratively with SEIU, emphasizing how

much they valued CHNV parolees’ critical services, and expressed concerns about

being able to replace workers quickly. SEIU had to expend significant resources to

engage both categories of employers in negotiations about leaves of absence and

reinstatement rights, the details of the work authorization reverification process,

and education and legal support for its workers about the meaning of the FRN.

SEIU believes that, had the FRN not been stayed in relevant part, essential airport

operations would likely have been disrupted, with other work-authorized employees

straining to deal with a substantially increased workload.

4 In New York/New Jersey, this number represented between 3 and 5 percent of

SEIU-represented airport service workers.

UNITE HERE faced a similar situation. In several Texas and Florida hotels

whose employees are represented by UNITE HERE, CHNV parolees make up a

substantial part of the “back-of-the-house” workers. Such positions are less

desirable and employers routinely have difficulty hiring and retaining workers in

those positions. It is common for back-of-the-house departments in hotels to be

understaffed and for the workers to work mandatory overtime or excessive

workloads. Regrettably, when faced with labor shortages, it is UNITE HERE’s

experience that employers in the hotel industry often turn to temporary labor

agencies to supply workers so that the hotel can continue serving its guests. Such

labor agencies, in addition to undermining the wages and working conditions for

U.S. workers employed by the hotels by paying substandard wages and benefits,

often violate immigration law by hiring undocumented workers. 5 Had the FRN not

been stayed in relevant part, UNITE HERE would have been harmed both by a loss

of members and by a potential decline in their terms and conditions of employment

in hotels where it is the bargaining representative.

Finally, IUPAT’s experience provides a window into the effects of the FRN on

the construction sector. IUPAT estimates that several hundred CHNV parolees

work for signatory contractors on important infrastructure projects, particularly in

the Southeast US and Gulf Coast region, where they perform skilled work as

5 Steve Eder, Danielle Ivory & Marcela Valdes, The Hidden Truth Linking the

Broken Border to Your Online Shopping Cart, N.Y. Times (Nov. 17, 2024),

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/immigration-undocumented-migrantsjobs.html?referringSource=audio-landing-page.

commercial and industrial painters, drywall finishers, and glaziers. These

contractors secured work based on their ability to timely complete projects; yet the

sudden loss of significant numbers of workers would lead to project delays. Even if a

project may continue, it places additional strain upon the remaining workforce,

manifesting in longer hours and working conditions that may be less safe. IUPAT

understands that the situation faced by other building trades unions is similar.

Amici’s experiences provide a ground-level view of how the FRN has affected

American unions, workers, and employers. These specific examples are neither

unique nor comprehensive; indeed, they are corroborated by publicly-available data

on the workforce integration of CHNV parolees in critical industries, including in

those experiencing domestic labor shortages. Reflecting the experience of UAW and

IUE-CWA, estimates suggest that 40,000 CHNV parolees work in manufacturing,

while 30,000 work in leisure and hospitality, the industry in which UNITE HERE

represents workers. Another 30,000 are employed in construction, 30,000 in health

services, 20,000 in business services, and 10,000 in education. 6

II.

The Disruption the Blanket Rescission of CHNV Parole Would Cause

to U.S. Workers and Employers Weighs Against a Stay in Two Ways

If DHS wanted to end the CHNV parole program, it had a straightforward

way to do so consistent with employers’ and employees’ expectations: It could have

simply declined to renew any grant of parole after the two-year term ended. This

6 Fwd.Us, “Industries with critical labor shortages added hundreds of thousands of

workers through immigration parole,” (March 26, 2025),

https://www.fwd.us/news/immigration-labor-shortages.

would have accomplished DHS’s desired goal of ending parole while allowing

employers and employees time to prepare as the CHNV parolees gradually left the

workforce unless they were able to establish an independent basis for work

authorization. Instead of terminating the program in that logical, non-disruptive

way, DHS eliminated the CHNV parole program in its entirety and overnight. The

disruption that decision causes, as highlighted above, weighs strongly against a

stay for two reasons: (1) it supports the district court’s decision that the FRN was

arbitrary and capricious; and (2) it undermines the government’s arguments on

both the public interest and balance of hardships under Nken.

The Blanket Rescission of CHNV Was Arbitrary and Capricious

Because It Failed to Consider the Economic Disruption Caused

by DHS’s Actions.

It is hornbook law that an agency action is arbitrary and capricious under the

APA when it “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” Motor

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (“State

Farm”). The district court—and respondents, in opposing the government’s

emergency application here—have ably explained that the wholesale rescission of

parole with a 30-day wind-down period is arbitrary and capricious because (1) it

failed to rebut any of the significant humanitarian reasons that justified the CHNV

program in the first place; and (2) rested on the legal fallacy that parolees could be

subject to expedited removal despite their legal entry into the country. App. 31a35a.

Amici agree. Today, just as in 2022-2023 when the various CHNV programs

were announced, Haiti is a failed state with a national government that has lost

territorial control to violent gangs, while Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are

governed by one-party authoritarian regimes with lamentable human rights

records. As the District Court correctly noted, the FRN “gave no rationale for its

conclusion that such humanitarian concerns no longer justified the existing parole

programs” and “no reasons for categorically revoking parole despite the

humanitarian concerns previously articulated.” App. 35a. This, alone, is reason

enough to deny the government’s emergency application.

Amici, however, emphasize another portion of the FRN that clearly failed to

consider an important aspect of the problem—the reliance of unions, employers, and

the American workforce on CHNV parolees’ work authorization. As this Court has

explained, when a “prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests that must

be taken into account . . . [i]t would be arbitrary and capricious to ignore such

matters.” F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515–16 (2009).

Instead, “a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances

that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” Id. at 516; see also Encino

Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 224 (2016) (when “serious reliance

interests [are] at stake, [and agency’s] conclusory statements do not suffice to

explain its decision”).

The FRN purports to have considered the regulatory alternative of

“permitting CHNV participants’ parole to remain in effect until the natural

expiration of the parole,” acknowledging that this was DHS’s practice in the past.

90 Fed. Reg. at 13620 (citing 82 Fed. Reg. 38926 (Aug. 16, 2017) (wind-down of

parole program for Central American minors during first Trump Administration

which allowed existing parolees to maintain status until its natural expiration). It

also claims to have considered “the alternative of a longer than 30-day wind-down

period.” Id. But the FRN gives no rational explanation for not following a similar

path here. The sole reason given for rejecting these alternatives is the alleged

difficulty of subjecting CHNV parolees to expedited removal (which, as the district

court correctly concluded, is based on the legally erroneous premise that CHNV

parolees can be subject to expedited removal in the first place.) App. 31a-34a.

As far as employment issues are concerned, the FRN limits discussion of such

reliance interests to one paragraph. It states, in full:

Third parties, including employers, landlords, and others, may

also have indirect reliance interests in the availability of

individual CHNV parolees, but even if DHS had allowed the

grants of parole to expire at the end of their designated terms,

such third parties would have experienced the effect of such

expiration. By providing 30 days’ notice, DHS balances the

benefits of a wind-down period for aliens and third parties with

the exigency of promptly enforcing the law against those aliens

lacking a lawful basis to remain in the United States. For the

same reasons set forth above, DHS finds the U.S. government’s

interest in terminating these grants of parole outweigh any

reliance interest of third parties.

90 Fed. Reg. at 13619.

This conclusory statement is manifestly insufficient to constitute the

“reasoned analysis for [a] change” in agency position required by law. State Farm,

463 U.S. at 42. The FRN does not indicate that DHS, or any other federal agency,

has conducted any labor market study or survey to determine where CHNV

parolees are employed or whether particular industries or geographies may suffer a

disproportionate impact from a sudden loss of significant parts of their workforce. It

refers to no data or statistics relating to the effects that providing 30 days’ notice

would have on any sector of the workforce. Nor does it compare this to any other

notice period (e.g. 6 months). It simply declares (apparently based on no facts at all)

that even if an employer reasonably expected to continue to lawfully employ large

numbers of CHNV parolees pursuant to their current employment authorization

through January 2027, it would be minimally prejudiced by being required to

terminate them all in April 2025.

This is obviously wrong: There is a massive difference between believing that

an employee must be terminated in twenty months and being told that an employee

must be terminated in thirty days. Thus, as explained at length in Section I, supra,

the mass revocation of CHNV-related work authorization on a 30-day timeline

imposes significant harms on unions, employers, and American workers alike. As

UAW and IUE-CWA explain, summarily terminating hundreds of skilled workers at

core manufacturing facilities will gravely harm U.S. workers who have already been

forced to work mandatory overtime due to labor shortages, and potentially endanger

contracts between suppliers and assembly plants. As UFCW shows, it would cause

massive disruptions to the meatpacking and food-processing industries akin to

those that occurred during an international pandemic. As SEIU demonstrates, such

an action would likely interrupt the orderly functioning of our Nation’s airport

infrastructure. As IUPAT contends, it would cause construction contractors to have

difficulty in timely completing key infrastructure projects. And as noted by UNITE

HERE, it will incentivize employers to meet their labor needs via temporary labor

agencies, which undermines both American workers’ labor standards and,

perversely, encourages the employment of undocumented workers with no work

authorization at all.

DHS’s explanation that employer, union, and worker reliance interests were

diminished because they “would have experienced the effect of such expiration” at

the end of two years is demonstrably false. As an initial matter, as described above,

it is far different for employers to know that a significant subset of employees would

gradually lose work authorization during a period stretching until January 2027

than for employers to find out, with no notice, that a significant subset of employees

would all lose work authorization in thirty days. Moreover, employers had every

reason to think that, were the CHNV program allowed to naturally fade away, a

meaningful number of CHNV parolees would have been able to maintain their work

authorization through an alternate path. A stated goal of CHNV parole was to

provide beneficiaries with a reasonable, orderly process by which they may be

evaluated for and apply for other relief: “the two-year period [would] enable

individuals to seek humanitarian relief or other immigration benefits for which they

may be eligible, and to work and contribute to the U.S. economy as they do so.”

DHS, “Implementation of a Parole Process for Venezuelans,” 87 Fed. Reg. 63507,

63508 (Oct. 19, 2022); see also DHS, “Implementation of a Parole Process for

Haitians,” 88 Fed. Reg. 1243, 1244 (Jan. 9, 2023) (same). Therefore, many CHNV

beneficiaries would likely have obtained a right to continuing employment

authorization beyond the initial two-year parole period by, for instance, timely filing

a meritorious asylum application or being the beneficiary of another family- or

work-based petition. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(8) (permitting asylum

applicants to apply for work permits 150 days after filing their applications if they

have not yet been adjudicated). Thus, though employers and unions had no

guarantee of continuing work authorization beyond the initial two-year grant of

parole, they had a reasonable expectation that a meaningful number of CHNV

parolees would obtain an independent lawful basis for work authorization prior to

the expiration of their parole. 7

But even if DHS had reasonably justified its decision to precipitously end

CHNV parolees’ parole status—which, as described above, it has not—it has

provided absolutely no rationale for also acting to revoke parolees’ employment

authorization. Even if DHS needed to end the CHNV program quickly in order to

subject its beneficiaries to expedited removal—which, as the district court

explained, it does not, because parolees are not eligible for expedited removal at all

—nothing about this rationale justifies stripping parolees of their work

authorization.8 As the FRN itself acknowledges, parolees’ work authorization

terminates automatically only if the initially-granted parole expires, removal

7 Indeed, though the FRN does not provide statistics on this matter, it acknowledges

that some number of CHNV parolees have, in fact, applied for other statuses and

states that it does not intend to prioritize them for removal. 90 Fed. Reg. at 13619.

8 The fact of maintaining work authorization would not prevent DHS from

instituting removal proceedings, expedited or otherwise, against any CHNV

parolee.

proceedings are instituted, or voluntary departure is granted. 8 C.F.R. § 274a.14(a).

But none of these three conditions are at issue here. Instead, DHS has stated that it

intends to exercise its discretion to revoke work authorization en masse, under a

provision that provides it the ability to do so “when it appears that any condition

upon which it was granted . . . no longer exists.” Id. § 274a.14(b). This provision is

not mandatory, and had it considered the interests of employers, unions, and the

American labor market, nothing would have prevented DHS from continuing to

provide CHNV parolees with work authorization unless and until it determined to

take enforcement action against them. DHS’s wholesale failure to consider this

possibility is not a minor issue. Union members who are CHNV parolees reasonably

relied on the government’s assurances that they would have two years to apply for

any immigration benefit for which they qualified. Securing counsel and preparing

any immigration application takes time and effort, and for asylum, the most

common benefit for which CHNV parolees would qualify, the INA requires a sixmonth waiting period between the time the application is filed and when the

applicant may receive an EAD. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(2). Even if a parolee is able to

prepare and file an asylum application on the same day that their parole is

revoked—thus establishing a legal basis for their continuing presence in the United

States—they will experience a gap in employment authorization of at least six

months, a period of time which is tremendously disruptive to employers, unions,

and other workers. DHS failed to consider that it might limit parole but allow work

authorization to continue forward to minimize disruptions to both parolees and

third parties such as employers, unions, and other workers.

Thus, for this and the reasons articulated by plaintiffs and the district court,

DHS’s failure to consider employment- and labor market-related harms of its

precipitous termination of the CHNV parolees’ status and work authorization

renders its determination arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The government

cannot, therefore, demonstrate the likelihood on the merits necessary to justify an

emergency stay of the district court’s order.

The Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Militate

Strongly Against a Stay of the District Court’s Order

The district court’s prompt action avoided imminent grave harm to hundreds

of thousands of CHNV parolees, who risked losing their immigration status and

work authorization on legally specious grounds: to amici unions, who collectively

represent over 15 million American workers, and who risked losing thousands of

members and were forced to scramble to provide unexpected legal and community

support; to employers, who were forced to reduce production and lose profits; and to

other workers, who were forced to work mandatory overtime and saw declines in

their terms and conditions of employment.

It is contrary to the public interest for manufacturing, meatpacking, and food

processing facilities, which already suffer from a significant labor shortage, to be

further hampered by sudden terminations of hundreds of skilled workers, forcing

American workers into mandatory overtime at the expense of their health and

safety. It is contrary to the public interest for hundreds of essential airport workers,

many of whom are engaged in security-related functions, to be summarily dismissed

at a time in which certain of our airports are already experiencing significant delays

and disruptions. 9 It is contrary to the public interest to have important

infrastructure projects remain unfinished because contractors have been forced to

lay off significant parts of their workforce. And it is contrary to the public interest

for employers facing labor shortages in difficult-to-fill positions to turn to low-road

subcontractors known for exploiting undocumented workers, thus undermining the

working standards of those who are authorized to work.

Staying the district court’s order would therefore “substantially injure the

other parties interested in the proceeding,” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776

(1987), and contravene the public interest, two key factors that indicate that a stay

should be denied, Nken, 556 U.S. at 435.

CONCLUSION

The Court should deny the government’s emergency application for a stay of

the district court’s order.

Dated: May 16, 2025

Respectfully submitted,