A Massachusetts federal judge has temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating Family Reunification Parole programs for migrants from seven countries, finding that the agency likely failed to provide proper notice to affected individuals.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a five-page order granting a 14-day temporary restraining order against DHS’s planned January 14 termination of the programs. The judge found little evidence that recipients had been properly notified through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services online accounts or mail, as the agency had claimed.

Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, allows certain relatives of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to enter the United States temporarily while awaiting immigrant visas—a process that can take years. The program provides a legal pathway for family members to reunite during the often lengthy immigration process.

In December, DHS announced it would end all FRP programs for migrants from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras, along with their immediate family members. The agency characterized the move as “ending the abuse of humanitarian parole” and returning to a “case-by-case basis as intended by Congress.”

“This administration is ending the abuse of humanitarian parole which allowed poorly vetted aliens to circumvent the traditional parole process,” the agency stated in its announcement. “Parole was never intended to be used in this way, and DHS is returning parole to a common-sense policies and a return to America First.”

The terminations would have affected thousands of migrants, though DHS had noted they would not apply to parole recipients who had filed Form I-485 applications for permanent residency by December 15, 2025, provided those applications remained pending.

Judge Talwani’s order specifically addressed the notification procedures, noting that while DHS claimed “all FRP parolees under the modernized programs should have a USCIS online account,” the court found no evidence “that most, let alone all, parolees do in fact have such accounts or when notice via such accounts was provided to the parolees.”

The legal challenge represents the latest in a series of judicial interventions in immigration policy changes. Immigration has become one of the most contentious political issues in recent years, with courts frequently weighing in on policy shifts from both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The Biden administration has faced criticism from both sides of the political spectrum on immigration policy. Progressive advocates have argued for more humanitarian approaches to migration, while conservative critics have pushed for stricter enforcement and reduced pathways to legal status.

Family reunification programs have historically been an important component of U.S. immigration policy, allowing families to remain together while navigating the complex immigration system. Defenders of such programs argue they reduce irregular migration by providing legal pathways for family members, while critics contend they create additional pull factors for migration.

The court order sets an expedited schedule for further proceedings. DHS must produce records explaining its decision by January 13, with the government’s legal response due by January 15. Plaintiffs will have until January 20 to reply.

The temporary block affects only the termination of the FRP programs and does not prevent the administration from implementing other immigration policy changes. However, it underscores the legal hurdles agencies face when attempting to modify existing immigration programs.

Immigration advocates have praised the ruling as a necessary protection for vulnerable migrants, while supporters of the termination argue the programs have been subject to abuse and should be ended to restore the intended purpose of humanitarian parole.

Judge Talwani’s order ensures that, at least for the next two weeks, the status quo will remain in place for beneficiaries of the FRP programs while the court examines whether proper procedures were followed in the termination process.