Key Plank of Biden Post-Title 42 Border Policy Halted by Judge

The Department of Homeland Security’s parole policy intended to help mitigate a migration surge in the wake of Title 42’s expiration has been halted by a federal judge in Florida.

Judge T. Kent Wetherell II of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction blocking the immigration policy called “Parole with Conditions” on Tuesday. The Pensacola-based judge said the policy was functionally the same as another he vacated in March.

The policy would allow parole authority to allow people into the country on the condition they schedule an appointment with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement within 60 days.

Attorneys for the State of Florida filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, which was granted, on May 11. Both Florida and DHS then asked for a preliminary injunction,the latter so the US could seek appellate review of the court’s decision.

DHS said the parole policy was meant to help stem the immigration crisis. But the court said the policy isn’t “as big of a deal as DHS is making” it because the number of border encounters is much lower than the agency predicted.

Recent data shows that the number of people arriving “was about one-third the number predicted in the declaration that DHS relied on in support of its argument that the sky will fall” if the parole policy isn’t implemented, said Wetherell, a 2019 appointee of President Donald Trump.

The court cited to reasoning it used when granting the restraining order, saying it was unpersuaded by DHS’s arguments.

The policy “does not reflect any consideration of the additional backlog that will likely be created by releasing aliens into the country without initiating immigration proceedings and then having to track them down to do so if they do not report to ICE,” Wetherell had said when granting the TRO.

The department’s “doomsday rhetoric rings hollow” because DHS created the problem “through the adoption of implementation policies that have encouraged the so-called ‘irregular migration’ that has become fairly regular over the past 2 years,” Wetherell wrote in that same May 11 order.

The case is Florida v. Mayorkas, N.D. Fla., No. 3:23-cv-09962, 5/16/23.