Vickers v. Biden - District Court

[ARCHIVED-September 2025] 

This case challenges a veritable kitchen sink of immigration programs and policies on behalf of two Texas counties (Kinney and Atascosa), Kinney County Sheriff Brad Coe, and Michael Vickers, a veterinarian who owns a ranch about 70 miles from the border. Represented by an anti-immigrant legal nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., they challenge the following:

• Four family reunification programs created in July 2023 that permit nationals of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who have been approved for a family-based visa but who are waiting for a visa to become available (because they are numerically capped each year) to be considered for a grant of “parole” - a statutorily authorized form of temporary permission for a non-citizen to live in the United States.
• The “CHNV” parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that are currently being challenged by Texas.
• The CBP One app, which is currently being challenged by Texas and a multi-state coalition led by Indiana.
• DHS’s Border Wall plan that is already subject to a permanent injunction.
• The termination of the “Migration Protection Protocols” (aka “Remain in Mexico”), which is still being challenged in a case brought by Texas.
• The same Immigration enforcement guidance from September 2021 that was at issue in USA v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court held that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing, and which Sheriff Coe and Kinney County already challenged (unsuccessfully).

Plaintiffs allege that all of these programs and policies violate the President’s constitutional duty to “Take Care” that the laws are faithfully executed as well as the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), for the alleged failure to consider environmental impacts. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of parole in the family reunification and CHNV programs and through the CBP One app exceeds the authority Congress granted in the parole statute.

On November 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to block all the above challenged agency actions while this case proceeds to final judgment. Thereafter, however, the parties agreed to stay the case in its entirety given that it could become moot after President Trump is inaugurated. On December 4, 2024, Judge Morales stayed the case and ordered the parties to file a joint status report in late February 2025, which they did. He then ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint for any non-moot claims by May 14, 2025. 

On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs instead dismissed this case.