Texas and 15 Other States Challenge DHS’s New Parole Program in Federal Court

Introduction

A coalition of 16 states, led by Texas, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging the legality of a new program designed to grant “parole in place” (PIP) to certain undocumented immigrants already residing in the United States. This legal battle, which is set to unfold in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, questions the authority of DHS to implement this program without the explicit consent of Congress.

The Parole in Place Program

The program at the heart of this dispute, referred to as “Implementation of Keeping Families Together,” was officially announced by DHS in August 2024. It allows undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for at least ten years and are married to U.S. citizens, or are the stepchildren of U.S. citizens, to apply for legal status without leaving the country. This initiative is expected to benefit over 1.3 million undocumented immigrants, including more than 200,000 residing in Texas alone.

The DHS justified the program by citing significant public benefits, such as promoting family unity, advancing economic interests, and furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives. However, the program’s opponents argue that it exceeds DHS’s statutory authority and undermines the immigration laws established by Congress.

Legal Arguments Against the Program

The lawsuit, filed on August 23, 2024, presents a multi-faceted legal challenge to the PIP program. The plaintiffs argue that the program is unlawful on several grounds:

1. Exceeding Statutory Authority: The states contend that the DHS’s parole authority, as defined by Congress, is limited to case-by-case decisions for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The plaintiffs argue that the PIP program, which offers parole to a large group of individuals based on generalized criteria, violates this statutory limit.

2. Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The lawsuit claims that the PIP program was implemented without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that the program’s justification does not meet the standards of reasonableness and transparency required under the APA.

3. Incentivizing Illegal Immigration: The states argue that the PIP program incentivizes illegal immigration by offering a pathway to legal status for those who entered the country unlawfully. They contend that this undermines the enforcement of immigration laws and imposes significant financial burdens on the states.

4. Economic Harm to States: The plaintiffs claim that the program will result in increased costs for state services, such as healthcare, education, and law enforcement, due to the influx of individuals eligible for parole. These costs, they argue, are a direct consequence of the federal government’s failure to enforce existing immigration laws.

The Court’s Initial Response

On August 26, 2024, the court issued a temporary administrative stay, halting the issuance of parole under the PIP program for 14 days while the case proceeds. This stay reflects the court’s recognition of the substantial legal and economic implications of the program, as well as the need for a thorough review of its legality.

The court also set an expedited schedule for the resolution of the case, indicating the urgency of the matter. Both sides have been ordered to prepare for a rapid progression to a hearing on the merits of the case, which could result in a preliminary injunction or a final ruling.

Implications and Next Steps

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for U.S. immigration policy. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could significantly curtail the executive branch’s ability to use parole as a tool for managing immigration. Conversely, a ruling in favor of DHS could affirm the agency’s broad discretion in implementing immigration policies, even in the face of congressional opposition.

As the legal proceedings move forward, the case is likely to draw significant public attention and could become a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over immigration reform in the United States.

Conclusion

The lawsuit filed by Texas and 15 other states against DHS represents a significant legal challenge to the Biden administration’s immigration policies. As the case progresses, it will test the limits of executive authority in immigration matters and could reshape the landscape of U.S. immigration law for years to come.