JEFFERSON CITY — In a significant legal victory, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, alongside officials from 16 other states, successfully challenged the Biden-Harris Administration's "parole in place" (PIP) rule.
A Texas federal court order has now invalidated the policy, which the plaintiffs argued would allow millions of undocumented immigrants to bypass immigration laws and pursue permanent residency.
The contested PIP rule sought to grant "parole" status to undocumented individuals residing in the United States for at least a decade, provided they were spouses or stepchildren of U.S. citizens.
Under the policy, these individuals would not be required to leave the country and re-enter through official channels, a step immigration laws have typically mandated.
The rule could open a pathway to permanent residency for over 1.3 million undocumented immigrants.
Bailey framed the court’s decision as a necessary intervention in response to what he described as the federal government’s failure to address border security issues.
"Joe Biden and Kamala Harris created a crisis at the southern border, leaving the American people to pay the consequences,” Bailey said in a provided statement. "In the wake of the federal government’s refusal to act, states like Missouri had no choice but to step in and take action to secure our southern border."
Bailey and his colleagues argued that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had exceeded its authority by implementing the PIP rule without congressional approval, the original complaint stated.
The coalition of attorneys general maintained that Congress, not the executive branch, is responsible for shaping immigration laws and policies.
"The court declares that defendants lack statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) itself (as opposed to under other provisions modifying or supplementing that authority) to grant parole 'in place' to aliens, as that term is used in the final agency action published at 89 Fed. Reg. 67,459 (Aug. 20, 2024) ('Implementation of Keeping Families Together'), or to deem parole 'in place' as used there to be parole 'into the United States' for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)," U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker wrote in the final judgment filed Nov. 7. "That agency action is hereby set aside and vacated pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). All other relief prayed for is denied without prejudice, except for attorneys’ fees and nontaxable expenses, which may be sought after final judgment."
Their lawsuit asserted that granting mass amnesty to undocumented immigrants in this manner violated constitutional limits on executive power.
The coalition of states that joined Missouri in the lawsuit includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming and America First Legal.
The ruling effectively halted the PIP program, with the court concurring that the policy’s implementation was unconstitutional.
While proponents of the rule have argued it would provide humanitarian relief and stability to qualifying families, critics like Bailey view it as a circumvention of existing immigration laws and a contributor to border security challenges.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division case number: 6:24-cv-00306