A federal judge has overturned the Parole in Place (PIP) program instituted by the Biden administration, a program that provided legal status to approximately 500,000 undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens and around 50,000 undocumented stepchildren, allowing them to begin their permanent residency (Green Card) processes in the United States.
Judge J. Campbell Barker, appointed during Donald Trump's administration and serving in the Eastern District of Texas, had previously temporarily suspended the regulation and in his recent ruling declared it permanently invalid, stating that Congress had not authorized the executive branch to implement that policy.
The decision came after a lawsuit led by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, supported by 16 other states, who argued that the measure exceeded the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Campbell Barker determined that the DHS lacked the necessary legal authority, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, to establish Parole in Place, a policy designed to provide residency options without requiring applicants to leave and reenter the country.
Bailey justified the legal action by stating that the states had to intervene due to the federal government's inaction in securing the southern border.
This policy, which was implemented during the electoral campaign of the Democratic Party, aimed to simplify the residency application process for spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens.
The program allowed more than half a million undocumented spouses and stepchildren to adjust their immigration status and obtain a residency card without leaving the United States, thereby avoiding the Punishment Law, which imposes penalties of three to ten years on those who leave the country after a prolonged undocumented stay.
However, state authorities warned that its implementation would increase expenses in public services such as healthcare, education, and security.
The court ruling, issued this Thursday, comes in a context where the lawsuit was supported by 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, which challenged the constitutionality of the program.
The Parole in Place stipulated that applicants must meet several requirements, including continuous residence in the United States since 2014 and a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen before 2024.
Applicants submitted their application using Form I-131, a travel document that USCIS accepted at no additional cost, although the administrative fees for completing this process in 2024 amounted to $580.
The ruling raises questions about the judiciary's ability to intervene in presidential decisions, according to U.S. media.
The separation of powers in the United States allows the judicial branch, through "judicial review," to assess the constitutionality of presidential orders or policies from government departments.
In this way, any individual or group that deems an executive order unconstitutional can file a lawsuit in a federal court.
In this case, the federal judge may issue a suspension order that halts the policy until a final ruling is made. If the federal government is dissatisfied, it can appeal and bring the case to the Supreme Court, ensuring reviews at various levels.
Following the annulment, the group America First Legal, along with 14 states, celebrated the court's decision that, according to their statements, prevents an attempt at "mass amnesty" by the Biden administration.
Idaho's Attorney General, Raúl Labrador, also praised the decision, stating that the ruling curbs the administration's efforts to circumvent immigration laws.
What do you think?
COMMENTFiled under:
