State Attorneys General Challenge Biden Administration’s Parole-in-Place Rule

Challenge to the Parole-in-Place Rule

Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, alongside a coalition of 20 other state attorneys general, is taking a significant legal step by challenging the Biden-Harris administration’s Parole-in-Place (PIP) rule. This coalition has filed an amicus brief to support a lawsuit aimed at overturning the controversial policy. The lawsuit, lodged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, questions the administration’s legal authority in implementing the rule which allows a substantial number of illegal immigrants to continue residing in the United States temporarily.

Exceeding Executive Authority

The crux of the coalition’s argument is that the PIP rule, established by the Department of Homeland Security in August 2024, overreaches the executive powers as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. This law restricts parole to a case-by-case basis, highlighting urgent humanitarian needs or significant public interest. The attorneys general argue that the broad application of this rule exceeds these limitations, effectively challenging congressional authority and setting a precarious precedent for future executive actions.

Beyond the legal discourse, the coalition raises a critical issue about the message sent by such policies. They argue that granting temporary legal residency to over a million individuals potentially encourages more illegal immigration by suggesting a lax enforcement of existing immigration laws. This sentiment is echoed across the states represented in the coalition, which consists of states across different regions of the country, from Texas to New Hampshire.

Complex Implications for States

The attorneys general outline the profound impacts of the PIP rule on state-level governance. An increase in illegal immigration levels due to the policy may impose substantial financial and administrative burdens on these states. This includes heightened costs associated with law enforcement, as well as strains on educational and healthcare infrastructures which need to accommodate growing populations.

Coupled with these economic implications are concerns for public safety. The coalition links the rise in immigration-related crime, including a staggering 260% increase in fentanyl seizures in Virginia, to inadequacies in federal immigration policy enforcement. These concerns are not isolated, as the coalition includes states such as Ohio, Texas, and Arkansas, each having experienced similar challenges linked to illegal immigration.

Contesting the Rule’s Implementation

Criticism also falls on the procedural aspects of how the PIP rule came into being. The coalition accuses the Biden-Harris administration of bypassing the mandatory notice-and-comment procedure required under the Administrative Procedure Act. This act of skipping essential regulatory processes potentially undermines the transparency and accountability typically expected in shaping significant governmental policies.

As the legal challenge moves forward, it captures the complexity of U.S. immigration policies and the tensions between federal authority and state responsibilities. This coalition embodies a collective pushback against policies perceived as overreach, using both legal and public forums to advocate for changes in how immigration and related matters are governed in the United States.