This is an appeal of a March 8, 2024 district court decision in which Judge Tipton dismissed the case based on his finding that Texas failed to demonstrate it is harmed due to the CHNV parole programs, and therefore does not have standing to maintain the case. Just a few days later, Texas and the 20 other plaintiff states filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit from the March 8 decision and final judgment order.
This lawsuit is on behalf of 21 states (led by Texas) challenging processes the Biden Administration established to permit nationals of specified countries to apply for and receive a two-year period of “parole”--a statutorily authorized form of temporary permission for a non-citizen to live in the United States. The Biden Administration created the first such process in April 2022, for Ukrainians; to date, no red state has challenged that process. In October 2022, DHS created a similar process for Venezuelans; then on January 5, 2023, that process was expanded to include nationals of Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. The parole processes for these four countries are part of a package of “border security measures”–including new restrictions on access to asylum–that are intended to deter migrants from coming to the U.S. border with Mexico to apply for asylum.
Texas filed its opening brief on June 26, 2024. The briefs of Appellees (the federal government and the intervenor defendants) are due on July 26, 2024. Amicus briefs in support of the CHNV program are due within 7 days of Appellees filing their briefs.
Technical Summary
Texas’s Complaint alleges that the parole program was created in violation of the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement and its prohibition on arbitrary and capricious agency action; and that the program exceeds the statutory parole authority, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5).
In the final judgment opinion at the district court level, Judge Tipton did not reach the merits of Texas’s claims.
On June 14, a motions panel denied Texas’s motion to expedite the appeal–but in the same order, and without explanation, also directed the Clerk’s Office to implement the precise briefing schedule Texas had requested in its (ostensibly denied) motion to expedite. The motions’ panel order was per curiam, but notes that Judge Douglas would have declined to order the briefing schedule.
Latest Updates
- 06/26/2024
- 03/14/2024Appeal docketed
