A coalition of 16 states, led by Texas, sued the Biden administration Friday to block an amnesty plan from going into effect. By Monday, a federal judge in east Texas granted their request and issued a temporary administrative stay.
In his ruling, Judge J. Campbell Barker, presiding over the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division, said the states’ claims that the Department of Homeland Security may be violating federal statutory law are “substantial.”
Barker issued a 14-day administrative stay that may be extended in the future. He also scheduled the case for expedited proceedings, issuing deadlines to be met by Oct. 10.
In response to the ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “We have temporarily BLOCKED Biden’s unlawful new ‘parole in place’ program. Biden’s unconstitutional scheme 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.”
The coalition sued after the Department of Homeland Security revised a “parole in place” (PIP) program, which they argue was revised to be used for purposes other than what it was intended, and violates federal law.
Under current law, those in the country illegally are prohibited from obtaining most immigration benefits, including permanent resident status, unless they leave the country and are admitted to re-enter legally. Through the rewriting of a federal rule, DHS said it would permit 1.3 million illegal foreign nationals to apply for permanent residency contrary to federal law.
DHS revising the program also enables federal agents to “process for certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens who are present in the United States without admission or parole,” meaning they are in the country illegally, “to request parole in place” status, the lawsuit argues.
The revised PIP “unilaterally grants the opportunity for citizenship to unvetted aliens whose first act on American soil was to break our laws” and will worsen the border crisis and impose significant costs to Americans in their states, the coalition argues.
Joining Texas are the states of Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming.
Each says they will be “irreparably harmed by the PIP program,” citing in their brief estimated costs to taxpayers who fund a range of subsidized services that illegal foreign nationals receive. They include Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, uncompensated healthcare costs, law enforcement costs due to crime, public education, “unemployment, environmental harm and social disorder due to illegal immigration.”
DHS says PIP status “will achieve the significant public benefit of promoting the unity and stability of families, increasing the economic prosperity of American communities, strengthening diplomatic relationships with partner countries in the region, reducing strain on limited U.S. government resources, and furthering national security, public safety, and border security objectives.”
Six illegal foreign nationals, their spouses, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights (CHIRLA), filed a motion Monday requesting to join the Biden administration in the lawsuit.
CHIRLA provides a range of services to foreign nationals in the country illegally, including those with deportation orders. It has urged the Biden-Harris administration and Congress to “immediately protect immigrants who build up this country and this democracy even as white supremacists try to destroy it.”
It’s also demanding a pathway to citizenship for millions of foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally as part of the Democrats’ “Build Back Better” platform.
Barker did not rule on the merits of the case but explained the necessity to issue a temporary administrative stay and expedite proceedings.
“The court will set an expedited hearing on preliminary relief and summary judgment, and if necessary a consolidated bench trial, on a date as soon as possible after completion of that briefing,” he said. “That should allow for prompt, efficient resolution of the case before any significant burden from the administrative stay.”
He also denied a motion filed by the defense and said other motions remain pending.
