Judge Pauses Biden Administration Program That Aids Undocumented Spouses
Ruling in favor of 16 Republican-led states that sued the administration, a federal judge put the program on hold while the court considers the merits of the case.more
In a significant legal setback for the Biden administration, a federal judge in Texas has temporarily halted a new immigration program aimed at easing the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens. The ruling has sparked a heated debate over immigration policy and family unity.
The Program: Keeping Families Together
The Biden administration’s “Keeping Families Together” program, unveiled in mid-June, was designed to offer a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are married to American citizens and have lived in the U.S. for over a decade. The initiative allows these immigrants to stay in the country while their applications for legal status are processed, bypassing the need to return to their home countries—a step that often results in prolonged separations.
Under the program, applicants receive a form of “parole” that shields them from deportation and grants them work authorization. This is intended to prevent the long wait times and family separations that have plagued many seeking legal residency through marriage to U.S. citizens.
Judge’s Ruling: A Temporary Block
On Monday, Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an administrative stay blocking the program from approving new applications. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by 16 Republican-led states, which argued that the program overstepped executive authority and amounted to “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants.
Judge Barker, appointed by former President Donald Trump, stated that the lawsuit raised substantial questions about the legality of the program and warranted further consideration. The stay is in effect for 14 days while the court reviews the arguments, and it may be extended.
Administration’s Response
President Biden expressed strong disapproval of the court’s decision. In a statement, he called the ruling “wrong” and reiterated his commitment to keeping families together. “These families should not be needlessly separated,” Biden said. “My administration will not stop fighting for them.”
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson emphasized that applications submitted before the stay would not be affected. However, no new approvals will be granted while the order is in place.
Criticism and Support
The ruling has been met with sharp criticism from immigrant advocates and supporters of the program. Rebecca Shi, executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition, condemned the block as harmful to families and the economy. “It is bad for the economy and against human decency to prevent people who have been here working and paying taxes from obtaining legal status more quickly,” Shi said.
Immigrant rights groups, including the Justice Action Center, had already filed a motion to intervene in the case, arguing that the stay was an extreme measure that could harm thousands of families. Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, criticized the states for lacking evidence of harm and called the order a setback for family unity.
Political and Legal Implications
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, reflects ongoing tensions over immigration policy. The Republican-led states argue that the program incentivizes illegal immigration and was created for political purposes. They contend that it imposes undue financial burdens on states and undermines federal immigration law.
The program’s opponents also argue that it was introduced as a countermeasure to new asylum restrictions imposed by the administration, aiming to balance its immigration policies.
Public and Personal Impact
The legal battle over the program has significant implications for many undocumented immigrants and their families. Ricardo Ocampo Hernandez, one of the thousands who applied under the new program, expressed his disappointment and anxiety over the court’s decision. “For years, we’ve been caught in a cycle of legal challenges and financial strain,” Ocampo said. “The new process offered a glimmer of hope that now feels distant.”
As the case continues to develop, the impact on families like Ocampo’s will remain a central concern. The program's fate will likely influence broader discussions on immigration reform and the balance between executive authority and congressional oversight.
Stay Updated
For ongoing coverage of this and other key issues, follow Frontline Fusion. We provide in-depth analysis and updates on the stories shaping our world.