A federal judge in Boston today blocked the regime’s plans to declare up to 15,000 people from seven countries illegal and subject to immediate arrest on Jan. 15.

In a temporary restraining order, US District Court Judge Indira Talwani said the regime violated its own regulations that require "written notice" to people whose status it planned to change because it contented itself with publishing notification of the impending change of status in the Federal Register, which few people read, rather than telling the affected people directly.

" ‘Written notice’ not only has a plain meaning, but the regulation explicitly requires that written notice must be provided ‘to the alien,’ " Talwani wrote. Her order calls for a minimum 14-day hold on the new policy, to allow both plaintiffs and the regime to argue why she should, or shouldn’t, issue a longer stay.

At issue is the "family reunification parole" (FRP) status granted to Colombians, Cubans, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans and Salvadorans who have family members in the US who are either US citizens or "lawful permanent residents."

Until the current convicted felon in chief took office again, these people were actually invited by the government to apply for "parole" to be with their family members here while they themselves worked toward American citizenship or permanent resident status. On Dec. 15, the department headed by a woman previously best known for shooting and killing her pet dog on purpose published a notice in the Federal Register that too bad, so sad, all those people would have to self deport effective Jan. 15 or risk being grabbed off the street by ICE.

Not so fast, Talwani ruled:

Based on a preliminary review of the issue for purposes of a temporary restraining order, the court finds that Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on their argument that the Defendants failed to provide proper notice of DHS’s decision to revoke grants of parole under the FRP program in contravention of DHS’s own regulation, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(D), and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

The failure to adequately notify the affected people buttresses another argument, she wrote: That they would suffer "irreparable harm" without a restraining order because otherwise they would have to "leave the country or risk accruing unlawful presence and thus threatening any future possibility of becoming lawful permanent residents and United States citizens." And that risk far outweighed any possible harm to the Department of Homeland Security during the two-week stay, she wrote.

While Plaintiffs and class members risk accruing unlawful presence should the revocation take place on January 14, 2026, Defendants’ harms will be minimal during the pendency of the two-week stay.

She gave regime attorneys until Thursday to file their legal opposition to the request for a longer stay, and then immigrants’ attorneys until Jan. 20 to reply.