Texas is leading a massive lawsuit against the Biden administration over their migrant parole program. On Tuesday, January 24th, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas on behalf of 20 Republican-led states. The lawsuit seeks to block the Biden administration’s new immigration program that allows up to 30,000 would-be asylum seekers to enter the United States.
The lawsuit claims that the Biden administration’s use of a phone app called CBP One is encouraging illegal immigration and violates federal law. The states argue that this new program circumvents Congress’ authority by allowing people who are not eligible for asylum into the country without congressional approval. They also argue that it puts an undue burden on state governments by forcing them to provide services and resources to those who enter through this program.
The states joining Texas in this lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia. In addition to blocking the program from taking effect immediately and permanently halting its implementation going forward.
This isn’t the first time Texas has taken legal action against the Biden administration over immigration issues. In February 2021 they sued over President Biden’s executive order halting construction of a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That case is still pending before a federal appeals court in New Orleans.
The Biden administration has defended their policy as being necessary for humanitarian reasons and argues that it will help reduce overcrowding at detention centers along the southern border while providing relief for those seeking asylum in America. They have also argued that it will help ensure due process for those seeking entry into the United States and allow them access to legal counsel if needed while their cases are being processed.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how future administrations handle immigration policy going forward as well as how much power individual states have when it comes to challenging federal policies they disagree with in court. It remains to be seen whether or not this case will be successful but regardless it is sure to be closely watched by both sides of the aisle as its outcome could shape future debates about immigration reform in America for years to come.