Estimated Time to Read: 5 minutes
Monday, a coalition of 16 states, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), secured a temporary stay against the Biden administration’s new “Parole in Place” (PIP) rule from United States District Judge John Campbell Parker. This order prevents the PIP rule, implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), from taking effect for 14 days while legal proceedings continue.
Background on the ‘Parole in Place’ Rule
The PIP rule, officially introduced on August 19, 2024, by the DHS, creates a process for certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to circumvent existing immigration barriers that typically require them to leave the U.S. and re-enter legally. This policy aims to keep families together by granting temporary permission to remain in the country and pursue lawful permanent residency (green card status) without the need to depart and reapply abroad. According to DHS, the PIP rule addresses the complexities and delays often associated with the consular process, thereby removing a significant barrier to immigration benefits.
Legal Challenge by Texas and Other States
The legal challenge spearheaded by Texas is supported by 15 other states, including Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming, along with America First Legal (AFL), a conservative legal organization. The coalition argues that the Biden administration’s rule violates the U.S. Constitution by overstepping executive authority to alter immigration laws without Congressional approval. Specifically, the lawsuit contends that the PIP rule unlawfully grants the opportunity for citizenship to undocumented individuals whose initial act in the U.S. was to enter the country illegally.
In their filings, the plaintiffs argue that the new rule could enable over 1.3 million undocumented immigrants, including more than 200,000 residing in Texas, to apply for lawful permanent residency, effectively bypassing existing immigration laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton described the rule as a “parole workaround” that unilaterally grants benefits to “unvetted aliens” and incentivizes further illegal immigration.
Court’s Temporary Stay and Legal Proceedings
Judge John Campbell Parker’s administrative stay temporarily blocks the implementation of the PIP rule, providing a 14-day window during which the court will more thoroughly evaluate the merits of the case. The stay serves as a form of preliminary relief, preserving the status quo and preventing the DHS from issuing parole under the new rule until the court can determine whether a more extended injunction is warranted. The court’s decision to issue this stay underscores the seriousness of the claims raised by the plaintiffs, noting that the rule’s legal and constitutional questions merit closer scrutiny than had initially been afforded.
The court’s order emphasizes the need to examine whether the DHS’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) includes granting parole to aliens already present in the U.S., as opposed to those entering at or near the border. It also points out potential misinterpretations of the legal standards governing significant public benefit, highlighting concerns that the rule might prioritize perceived policy benefits over strict adherence to statutory requirements.
Expedited Case Schedule
To ensure a prompt resolution, Judge Parker has ordered an expedited schedule for the case. The court’s timelines include deadlines for filing motions related to the venue, responses, and replies on motions to intervene, discovery related to plaintiffs’ standing, and the preparation of the administrative record. This accelerated timeline reflects the urgency with which the court intends to handle the case, balancing the potential impacts on both the plaintiff states and the individuals seeking relief under the PIP rule.
The administrative stay may be extended beyond the initial 14 days if good cause is shown or if all parties consent. The case is expected to proceed swiftly through the court system, with hearings on preliminary relief and summary judgment anticipated to occur as soon as possible after the completion of briefings.
Broader Implications and Political Reactions
The PIP rule’s suspension is part of a broader context of legal and political battles over immigration policies under the Biden administration. Critics, primarily from Republican-led states, argue that the administration is overreaching its authority and undermining immigration laws designed to control and regulate the entry and residency of noncitizens. Proponents of the rule, on the other hand, argue that it is a humane and practical response to the reality faced by mixed-status families, aiming to keep them together without the disruption of forced departures and lengthy consular processes.
The lawsuit against the PIP rule also reflects ongoing disputes over the executive branch’s ability to modify immigration policy through administrative actions, a point of contention that has seen numerous iterations across both Democratic and Republican administrations. The outcome of this case could set significant precedents for how far executive agencies can go in interpreting and implementing immigration laws, particularly in areas where statutory language may be ambiguous or open to different interpretations.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded through a press release stating,
“We have temporarily blocked Biden’s unlawful new ‘parole in place’ program which would have rewarded over 1 million illegal aliens with the opportunity for citizenship after breaking our country’s laws—and incentivized countless more. This is just the first step. We are going to keep fighting for Texas, our country, and the rule of law.”
Conclusion
The legal battle over the Biden administration’s Parole in Place rule is a critical moment in the broader debate over immigration policy in the United States. With the temporary stay in place, the coalition of states led by Texas will continue to press their case that the rule exceeds DHS’s authority and undermines the statutory framework established by Congress. The expedited schedule ordered by the court ensures that this issue will be resolved promptly, providing clarity on the limits of executive power in shaping immigration policy and the lawful pathways available to noncitizens seeking to remain in the U.S. with their families. The case’s outcome will be closely watched, not only for its immediate implications on the PIP rule but also for its potential impact on the broader landscape of U.S. immigration law and executive authority.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
