**Supreme Court Approves Trump’s Immigration Rollbacks, Questions Deportation Approach**

In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has taken a balanced stance on former President Trump's immigration policies. The court displayed skepticism towards Trump's expedited deportation measures while endorsing his efforts to reverse policies from the Biden administration that had contributed to an increase in migrant entries.

Recently, the Supreme Court provided Trump with the legal clearance to halt a Biden-era "parole" program, which had allowed over 500,000 migrants, who lacked legal visas, to enter the United States. In a concise, unsigned order, the Justices suspended a lower court ruling that had previously prevented Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from rescinding the parole status. Consequently, these migrants now face potential deportation.

A similar development occurred a week earlier when the Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration to rescind the "temporary protected status" for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. This action represented another move away from Biden's more lenient immigration policies. Despite this, the court has also mandated that the Trump administration provide more "due process" to certain migrants facing deportation.

Rosemary Jenks, policy director at the Immigration Accountability Project, noted that the court's handling of these cases reflects a pattern of agreeing with simpler decisions while struggling with more complex ones. On the other hand, immigrant rights advocates, like Karen Tumlin from the Justice Action Center, have harshly criticized the court’s rulings. Tumlin emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision effectively authorizes the largest de-legalization of individuals in modern times.

The controversial Biden parole program had admitted Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, aiming to alleviate the pressures on the Border Patrol by permitting legal entry through airports. Nevertheless, former President Trump argued the program was marred by fraud and unnecessary for managing the border crisis, a stance validated by subsequent administrative changes under Secretary Noem.

Regarding legal challenges, a lower court initially ruled against Noem’s move to revoke the parole status. Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, asserted that parole revocation must adhere to a case-by-case basis, as required by law. Despite this, the Supreme Court overruled Talwani's decision without further explanation.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced a dissenting opinion, criticizing the majority for prioritizing Trump's swift actions over the migrants’ well-being. Jackson expressed concern that the ruling forces migrants to choose between leaving the U.S. voluntarily or risking forced deportation, both of which pose significant hardships for them.

In addressing the processing of deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the court emphasized the necessity of adequate notice and due process. For instance, in one of its rulings, it underscored that a 24-hour notice before removal, lacking information on how to contest the deportation, is unacceptable.

Jonathan Fahey, a senior official from Trump’s first term, suggested that the Supreme Court’s latest rulings could positively influence future immigration cases, demonstrating a potential shift to greater deference towards executive decisions on immigration.