Judge Declares Biden’s Undocumented Family Protection Program Illegal

A federal judge in Texas has delivered a significant blow to the Biden administration’s “Keeping Families Together” program. Late Thursday, U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker determined that the initiative, designed to permit over 550,000 undocumented spouses and stepchildren to remain in the U.S., is unconstitutional.

Judge Barker’s ruling asserts that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacks the authority to implement the program under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The judge explained that the INA permits only the paroling of individuals at entry, not those already residing in the country. “That limiting phrase refers to a legal entry into this country,” Barker noted in his 74-page opinion.

The lawsuit, filed by 16 Republican-led states last August, challenged the program’s ability to grant case-by-case parole, which aimed to prevent family separations. Without the program, applicants are required to return to their home countries for legal residency applications, facing potential entry bans of up to ten years.

Barker, appointed by former President Trump, had initially issued a temporary stay on the program shortly after the lawsuit was announced. DHS has since continued to accept applications, estimating that 500,000 spouses and 50,000 stepchildren could qualify under the rules that include criteria such as marriage to a U.S. citizen prior to June 17 and continuous residency since 2014.

The decision provoked immediate reactions. Social welfare organization FWD.us expressed disappointment, stating the program was crucial for protecting American families from separation due to immigration challenges. “The Keeping Families Together Parole program represents a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of American families in desperate need of protection,” the group tweeted.

Conversely, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey praised the ruling as a significant victory for law enforcement. He asserted in a statement, “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris created a crisis at the southern border, leaving the American people to pay the consequences.” Bailey suggested that inaction from the federal government necessitated state intervention for border security.

Judge Barker’s ruling followed a thorough examination of arguments presented during a consolidated hearing, where he scrutinized the financial implications of the program. Plaintiffs argued that it would impose increased costs on states concerning healthcare, education, and corrections, stating that even minimal financial injuries could trigger constitutional concerns.

Barker’s previous rulings against the Biden administration have included decisions related to the COVID-19 eviction moratorium and the National Labor Relations Board’s joint-employer rule, suggesting a consistent pattern of judicial skepticism toward certain executive actions.

DHS did not respond immediately to requests for comment following the ruling.