Just one week after implementation, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, issued a 14-day administrative halt on DHS’s ability to grant parole in place under Biden’s “Keeping Families Together”. Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas extended the temporary block on the policy until September 23 to allow for legal arguments and a potential hearing.
On August 19, 2024, DHS implemented President Biden’s “Keeping Families Together” parole program in order to alleviate the difficulties of family unity in the immigration system. It was designed to give over half a million spouses and stepchildren of US citizens temporary legal status and a possible route to citizenship. The program does this by enabling these noncitizens to apply for adjustment of status to become lawful permanent residents without having to leave the country if granted parole and if otherwise eligible.
The case against the program was initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with 15 other state attorneys general. They sued DHS over the program, deepening the ongoing tension between state authorities and federal immigration policies, particularly those aimed at protecting vulnerable immigrant populations.
The plaintiffs contend that the initiative places an excessive burden on state resources and goes beyond DHS’s statutory jurisdiction. They argue that the arrangement gives people who might otherwise be deported an unfair advantage and weakens the state’s ability to enforce immigration rules.
The program is on hold through an administrative stay, which is a provisional remedy that stops the application of a policy without concluding if it is lawful. It gives the court time to weigh the arguments made and determine if the plaintiffs have shown that there is a chance of winning their case on its merits and that there could be irreversible harm if the policy is allowed to go forward.
To comply with the decision, USCIS will not grant any pending parole in place requests under Keeping Families Together. However, USCIS will continue to accept filings of Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, and continue to schedule biometric appointments and capture biometrics at Application Support Centers (ASCs).
The district court’s administrative stay order does not affect any applications that were approved before the administrative stay order was issued at 6:46 p.m. Eastern Time on August 26, 2024.
As a result of the decision, anyone who could have qualified for parole under the Keeping Families Together program will not be allowed to take advantage of this policy for the first 14 days. Families of immigrants who were depending on the policy to shield them from deportation may experience more fear and uncertainty as a result. However, eligible spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens should continue to submit petitions for parole in place. Should the program be invalidated, the government will likely process petitions that were submitted before the invalidation, but it may not accept any new petitions after that point.
Additionally, the outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how similar immigration policies are challenged and enforced. The case brings to light the legal disputes over statutory interpretation and executive authority. Plaintiffs contend that by enacting a policy they believe should have required legislative rather than executive action, DHS overreached its jurisdiction. The final ruling of the court will depend on how the statutory limitations and administrative authority are interpreted.
Tensions over immigration between state and federal authorities are seen in the Texas-DHS debate. States with sizable immigrant populations frequently struggle with federal laws that they believe infringe upon their rights to resources or jurisdiction. The verdict in this case may have an impact on future interactions between state and federal immigration regulations.
A lot can still happen as this case unfolds. It may be appealed to higher courts, such as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and maybe the Supreme Court, depending on the court’s final decision. This can prolong the legal procedure and provide more grounds for legal challenges. The program may also be reviewed and perhaps revised by DHS as a result of the administrative stay. The government might introduce new safeguards to guarantee the validity and efficacy of the policy, or it might make changes to address the issues brought forth by the plaintiffs.
There might be more pressure on Congress to take legislative action to address the fundamental problems in reaction to the legal challenges. Legislators may submit legislation to define or alter DHS’s jurisdiction over immigration issues, giving impacted parties more security and predictability. The court has set an expedited schedule for the case, with key deadlines in September and early October. A hearing on preliminary relief and summary judgment is expected to be scheduled soon after October 10. In the meantime, more information and updates can be found on the USCIS Keeping Families Together website.
The material contained in this article does not constitute direct legal advice and is for informational purposes only. An attorney-client relationship is not presumed or intended by receipt or review of this presentation. The information provided should never replace informed counsel when specific immigration-related guidance is needed.
Reprinted with permission from the September 12, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer© 2024 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – reprints@alm.com.
