A federal judge has invalidated the Biden administration's Parole in Place program, which previously granted legal status to approximately 500,000 undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens and around 50,000 undocumented stepchildren, allowing them to begin their applications for permanent residency (Green Card) without leaving the United States.
Judge J. Campbell Barker, appointed during the Trump administration and serving in the Eastern District of Texas, recently ruled to permanently nullify the policy. He argued that the executive branch lacked the authorization from Congress to implement such a measure. This decision follows a temporary suspension of the regulation by the same judge.
Legal Challenges and State Opposition
The ruling came after a lawsuit led by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and supported by 16 other states. They contended that the policy exceeded the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Barker determined that the DHS lacked the legal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish Parole in Place, which was intended to provide residency options without requiring applicants to exit and re-enter the country.
Bailey justified this legal action by stating that the states had to step in due to the federal government’s inaction in securing the southern border. The policy was introduced amidst the Democratic Party’s electoral campaign, aiming to streamline the residency application process for spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens.
Implications of the Judicial Decision
The program allowed over half a million undocumented individuals to adjust their immigration status and obtain a Green Card without leaving the U.S., thereby avoiding penalties under the "Three- and Ten-Year Bar" for unlawful presence. However, state authorities warned that its implementation could spike public service costs in sectors like healthcare, education, and security.
The judicial decision, delivered on Thursday, comes after states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, along with the organization America First Legal, challenged the program's constitutionality.
Criteria and Costs for Applicants
Under the Parole in Place, applicants had to meet specific criteria, including continuous residence in the U.S. since 2014 and a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen before 2024. Applications were submitted using Form I-131, a travel document that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) accepted without an additional fee, despite administrative costs reaching $580 in 2024.
The ruling raises questions about the judiciary's role in presidential decisions. The U.S. system of separation of powers allows the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of executive orders or department policies through "judicial review." This enables individuals or groups to challenge what they perceive as unconstitutional executive actions in federal court.
In such cases, a federal judge can issue a suspension order to halt the policy until a final decision is made. If dissatisfied, the federal government can appeal, potentially bringing the matter before the Supreme Court for further review.
Following the annulment, America First Legal and 14 states celebrated the judicial decision, claiming it blocked an alleged attempt at "mass amnesty" by the Biden administration. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador also praised the ruling, asserting it halts the administration's efforts to bypass immigration laws.