United States District Court

Northern District of Texas

Amarillo Division

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

By and through its Attorney General, Ken 

Paxton,

THE STATE OF ALASKA,

By and through its Attorney General, 

Treg R. Taylor

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS,

By and through its Attorney General, 

Leslie Rutledge

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

By and through its Attorney General,

Ashley Moody

THE STATE OF INDIANA,

By and through its Attorney General,

Todd Rokita

THE STATE OF MISSOURI,

By and through its Attorney General,

Eric Schmitt

THE STATE OF MONTANA,

By and through its Attorney General,

Austin Knudsen

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

By and through its Attorney General,

John M. O’Connor,

Plaintiffs

Civil Action No. ____________

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 34 PageID 1
2

v.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official 

capacity as President of the 

 United States; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF 

POPULATION, REFUGEES, AND 

MIGRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY;

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES;

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of State;

NANCY IZZO JACKSON, in her official 

capacity as Senior Bureau Official, 

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 

Migration;

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of Homeland 

Security;

UR JADDOU, in her official capacity as 

Director of U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services,

Defendants

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 34 PageID 2
3

COMPLAINT

The States of Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, 

and Oklahoma (collectively “Plaintiff States”) bring this civil action against the 

above-listed Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Aliens who are qualifying relatives of American citizens or lawful 

permanent residents often wait years—or decades—to lawfully immigrate to the 

United States. They endure lengthy processes, background checks, and paperwork 

requirements that can seem substantial. But they go through the processes that 

Congress created, and they patiently wait for their opportunity to lawfully enter the 

United States and pursue the American dream.

2. Conversely, illegal aliens do not have the right under federal law to 

petition the federal government for their relatives abroad to join them in residing in 

the United States. There are no lawful paths for aliens who lack status to come join 

other aliens who lack status in the United States—and for good reason. It defies 

common sense. No sovereign nation would reward those who break the law by 

permitting family members abroad to join them in living in the sovereign territory 

unlawfully, particularly with the assistance of the government itself. To do so would 

undermine national sovereignty and would be fundamentally unfair to those who 

pursue lawful immigration channels and patiently wait for their opportunity to 

immigrate to the United States. 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 34 PageID 3
4

3. But the Biden Administration has created such a program for certain 

illegal aliens who are from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras (the region known 

as the Northern Triangle) and who reside in the United States, so long as they meet 

certain arbitrary qualifications created by the Administration. In short, if an illegal 

alien from one of those three countries is inside the United States and has so much 

as a pending application for asylum, they can petition the United States Government 

to bring their minor children into the United States—despite no explicit authority 

from Congress to do so. And not just the illegal alien’s minor children, but also the 

in-country parent of a qualifying child, a legal guardian, or a child’s primary 

caregiver. 

4. In fact, beneficiaries under this extra-statutory regime—innocuously 

named the “Central American Minors Program,” or “CAM”—are permitted to enter

and reside within the United States for a practically indefinite period. 

5. The CAM Program is an inartful combination of two different statutory 

authorities in the immigration laws: the Refugee Admissions Program under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1157, and the “parole” authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). 

6. The United States first screens aliens for eligibility for the Refugee 

Admissions Program, but most of the applicants do not come close to meeting the 

legal standard to be considered a “refugee” as it is defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). 

Instead, the crux of the CAM program is its use of the parole authority—an authority 

only available on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or for 

significant public benefit—to allow the very same individuals who did not qualify as 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 34 PageID 4
5

refugees to come into the United States. A result that is entirely inconsistent with 

the law. 

7. To the extent that it provides benefits outside of those provided in law 

by the Refugee Admissions Program, the CAM Program is an unlawful artifice of the 

Biden Administration’s imagination, never authorized by Congress. And to the extent 

that it facilitates the entry into the United States of illegal aliens’ family members 

based on the mere existence of an application for speculative benefits, it is an 

extraordinarily disastrous program to employ in the middle of an unprecedented 

border crisis. 

8. The CAM Program is illegal. The Biden Administration created it 

without consideration of the effects it will have on the Plaintiff States and the 

continuing crisis along the Southwest Border. The Administration created it without 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. And it imposes substantial, irreparable harms on 

the Plaintiff States. 

9. This Court should declare unlawful and enjoin the Biden 

Administration’s unlawful program. 

PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs. 

10. Plaintiff State of Texas is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Texas sues to vindicate its sovereign, proprietary, 

and parens patriae interests. The Defendants’ operation of the CAM Program injures 

Texas in multiple ways.

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 5 of 34 PageID 5
6

11. First, Texas spends significant amounts of money providing services to 

illegal aliens. Those services include education services and healthcare, as well as 

many other social services broadly available in Texas. Federal law requires Texas to 

include illegal aliens in some of these programs. Paroling CAM beneficiaries into 

Texas will injure Texas by increasing the number of illegal aliens receiving such 

services at its expense.

12. Second, the State funds multiple healthcare programs that cover illegal 

aliens. Providing these services, which illegal aliens use, results in millions of dollars 

of expenditures per year. These services include the Emergency Medicaid program, 

the Texas Family Violence Program, and the Texas Children’s Health Insurance 

Program.

13. The Emergency Medicaid program provides health coverage for lowincome children, families, seniors, and the disabled. Federal law requires Texas to 

include illegal aliens in its Emergency Medicaid program. The program costs Texas 

tens of millions of dollars annually.

14. The Texas Family Violence Program provides emergency shelter and 

supportive services to victims and their children in Texas. Texas spends more than a 

million dollars per year on the Texas Family Violence Program, which includes 

services for illegal aliens.

15. The Texas’s Children’s Health Insurance Program offers low-cost health 

coverage for children from birth through age 18. Texas spends tens of millions of 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 6 of 34 PageID 6
7

dollars each year on CHIP expenditures, which includes expenditures for illegal 

aliens.

16. Texas faces the costs of uncompensated care provided by state public 

hospital districts to illegal aliens which results in expenditures of hundreds of 

millions of dollars per year.

17. Aliens and the children of those aliens receive education benefits from 

the State at significant taxpayer expense. The Defendants’ facilitation of the entry of 

minor aliens into Texas through the CAM program thus increases education 

expenditures by the State of Texas each year

18. Third, allowing CAM beneficiaries to be paroled into Texas will cause it 

to “incur significant costs in issuing driver’s licenses.” Texas v. United States, 809 

F.3d 134, 155 (5th Cir. 2015). Texas law subsidizes driver’s licenses, including for 

aliens who have “documentation issued by the appropriate United States agency that 

authorizes [them] to be in the United States.” Id. (quoting Tex. Transp. Code § 

521.142(a)). Aliens paroled in the United States are eligible for subsidized driver’s 

licenses.1 By increasing the number of aliens who can secure subsidized licenses, the 

Defendants impose significant financial harm on Texas. See Texas, 809 F.3d at 155.

19. Plaintiff State of Arkansas is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Arkansas sues to vindicate its sovereign, 

proprietary, and parens patriae interests. The Defendants’ operation of the CAM 

Program injures Arkansas in multiple ways. Illegal aliens in the State receive 

1 Tex. Dept. of Pub. Safety, Verifying Lawful Presence 4 (Rev. 7-13), https://bit.ly/32cdfry (listing 

“Parolees” as eligible for driver’s licenses).

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 7 of 34 PageID 7
8

numerous state services. Paroling CAM beneficiaries into Arkansas will injure the 

State by increasing the number of illegal aliens receiving such services at the 

taxpayers’ expense. Thus, the operation of the CAM Program will inflict harm upon 

Arkansas and its tax-paying citizens

20. Plaintiff State of Alaska is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Alaska sues to vindicate its sovereign, proprietary, 

and parens patriae interests. Upon information and belief, the Defendants’ operation 

of the CAM Program injures Alaska in multiple ways. Despite Alaska’s distance from 

the lower forty-eight contiguous states, Alaska has thousands of illegal aliens in the 

State that receive state services. Paroling CAM beneficiaries into Alaska will injure 

Alaska by increasing the number of illegal aliens receiving such services at its 

expense. For example, Alaska spends a “Base Student Allocation” of an average of 

$5,930 per adjusted average daily membership (adjusted student count) per year on 

public school education, regardless of immigration status. On information and belief, 

as of 2016, the population of illegal aliens was estimated at around 5,000, which 

comprised 13 percent of the immigrant population in the State. The operation of the 

CAM Program will inflict harm upon the State and its tax-paying citizens.

21. Plaintiff State of Florida is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Florida sues to vindicate its sovereign, proprietary, 

and parens patriae interests. The presence of illegal aliens in the State of Florida 

violates its quasi-sovereign interest in its territory and the welfare of its citizens and 

causes Florida to incur millions of dollars of costs every year. Florida’s state prison 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 8 of 34 PageID 8
9

system alone spends over $100 million per year incarcerating unlawfully present 

aliens who commit crimes in the State. Florida spends an average of almost $8,000 

per student each year on public school education, which it provides regardless of 

immigration status.2 Florida’s Department of Children and Families provides a 

variety of public services to unlawful aliens at the State’s expense, including 

providing shelter to victims of domestic violence, providing care to neglected children, 

and providing substance abuse and mental health treatment. Finally, Florida 

frequently pays the cost of emergency medical services for the uninsured. Increased 

presence of aliens will undoubtedly increase financial costs incurred by Florida. 

22. Plaintiff State of Indiana is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Indiana sues to vindicate its sovereign, 

proprietary, and parens patriae interests. The Defendants’ operation of the CAM 

Program injures Indiana in multiple ways. Upon information and belief, the 

Defendants’ operation of the CAM Program injures Indiana by increasing the 

amounts of money the state is spending on a number of services, including healthcare 

and education services. Paroled members of the CAM Program would be eligible for 

Medicaid and the Indiana Children’s Health Insurance Program. Paroled children in 

the CAM Program would enroll in schools in Indiana where additional funds will be 

expended to ensure the children are learning English and not falling behind in their 

studies. 

2 Fla. Dept. of Ed., Every Student Succeeds Act, 2019-20 Per-pupil Expenditures – District and State, 

https://bit.ly/3G0Z8Dr (last accessed Jan. 27, 2022).

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 9 of 34 PageID 9
10

23. Plaintiff State of Missouri is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Missouri sues to vindicate its sovereign, 

proprietary, and parens patriae interests. The Defendants’ operation of the CAM 

Program injures Missouri in multiple ways. Illegal aliens in the State receive 

numerous state services, including healthcare, education, drivers-license, and 

criminal justice-related costs, among others. Paroling CAM beneficiaries into 

Missouri will injure the State by increasing the number of illegal aliens receiving 

such services at its expense. Thus, the operation of the CAM Program will inflict 

harm upon Missouri and its tax-paying citizens.

24. Plaintiff State of Montana is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Montana sues to vindicate its sovereign, 

proprietary, and parens patriae interests. The Defendants’ operation of the CAM 

Program injures Montana in multiple ways. Illegal aliens in the State receive 

numerous state services. Paroling CAM beneficiaries into Montana will injure 

Montana by increasing the number of illegal aliens receiving such services at its 

expense. A 2018 study estimated that approximately 3,000 illegal aliens currently 

reside in Montana. Migration Policy Institute, Profile of the Unauthorized Population

(MT), https://bit.ly/3r5Pz1w. A 2016 study estimated the number to be around 5,000. 

See U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, Pew Research Center 

(2016), https://pewrsr.ch/3G9ce1c. A 2017 study estimated the annual cost per illegal 

alien to Montana taxpayers is $4,802. Federation for American Immigration Reform, 

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration 34 (2017), https://bit.ly/34e9DWC. Thus, 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 10 of 34 PageID 10
11

the operation of the CAM Program will inflict harm upon Montana and its tax-paying 

citizens. 

25. Plaintiff State of Oklahoma is a sovereign State, subject only to the 

Constitution of the United States. Oklahoma sues to vindicate its sovereign, 

proprietary, and parens patriae interests. The Defendants’ operation of the CAM 

program injures Oklahoma’s interests in its territory and the welfare of its citizens 

and causes Oklahoma to incur millions of dollars of costs every year. Oklahoma sits 

close to the southern border of the United States and sits on the Interstate 35 and 

Interstate 44 corridors, which serve as major arteries for the illegal immigration that 

CAM encourages and for related illegal drug traffic. As a result, the state’s agencies 

are often tasked with resolving the problems created by the CAM program and 

incurring additional costs. For example, Oklahoma penitentiaries currently house 

prisoners not lawfully present in the United States who have committed crimes, at 

cost to Oklahoma of over $20,000 per year per prisoner. Oklahoma must incur the 

expense of providing a free public education to any school age child admitted through 

CAM—a cost of approximately $9,000 per year per child. Oklahoma also incurs 

significant costs for health care and other state services that are broadly available in 

the state, including to illegal aliens. Increasing the presence of aliens through the 

CAM program and its parole process will impose financial harm on Oklahoma.

B. Defendants.

26. Defendant Joseph R. Biden, Jr., is the President of the United States. 

He is sued in his official capacity.

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 11 of 34 PageID 11
12

27. Defendant United States of America is the federal sovereign. 

28. Defendant U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) oversees and administers 

portions of the refugee resettlement program through the Bureau of Population, 

Refugee, and Migration (“PRM”), and administers the Resettlement Support Centers 

(“RSC”) in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

29. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) oversees 

Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) as a constituent 

agency of DHS. DHS and its constituent agencies administer the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (“INA”).

30. Defendant Antony J. Blinken is the United States’ Secretary of State. 

He is sued in his official capacity only.

31. Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the U.S. Secretary of Homeland 

Security. He is sued in his official capacity only.

32. Defendant Ur Jaddou is the Director of USCIS. He is sued in his official 

capacity only.

33. Defendant Nancy Izzo Jackson is the Senior Bureau Official at PRM. 

She is sued in her official capacity only.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

34. The Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because it arises under the 

Constitution and laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346, 1361; 5 

U.S.C. §§ 702–703. It has jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. §§ 705–706 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1361 and §§ 2201–2202 to render the declaratory and injunctive relief that the 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 12 of 34 PageID 12
13

Plaintiff States request. The Plaintiff States’ claims are not subject to the INA’s 

denial of jurisdiction for claims on behalf of an alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), because it is

bringing this suit for the benefit of itself and its citizens.

35. This district is a proper venue because the State of Texas resides here 

and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Texas’s claims occurred 

here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 

FACTS

A. The Refugee Admissions Program and the Parole Authority

36. Congress, through the INA, provides a fulsome statutory scheme to 

address matters related to immigration, refugees, and the government’s parole 

authority. 

37. Specifically, the INA defines the term “refugee,” and enumerates the 

mechanism for granting refugee status. See 8 U.S.C § 1157 et seq. The INA defines as 

a refugee:

[A]ny person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, 

in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in 

which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or 

unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or 

herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The INA also provides limited authority to consider the 

admission of a refugee who is within their home country—but the underlying 

requirements still apply (persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). Id. at § 1101(a)(42)(B).

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 13 of 34 PageID 13
14

Importantly, the INA does not provide any authority to categorically admit 

individuals into the United States who do not qualify as refugees under the law, but 

who otherwise present sympathetic circumstances. 

38. As established by Congress by statute, the Refugee Admissions Program 

involves a careful consultation process between the President and the Congress—

whereby the President proposes an annual cap on the number of refugees who can be 

admitted in a given fiscal year, consults with Congress on that number, and then 

carries on duties related to an admission of a number of refugees no higher than that 

number. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1157(a)(2), (d). 

39. Separately, the INA provides the specific instances where the 

government may use its authority to parole individuals into the United States who 

otherwise would not be lawfully permitted to enter. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). 

Specifically, Congress has directed that parole may only be granted on a case-by-case 

basis, and even then, only for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public 

benefit.” Id. at § 1182(d)(5)(A). See also Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 947 (5th Cir. 

2021). 

40. Congress added those restrictions—the case-by-case basis for urgent 

humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit—to the parole power in 1996, 

because: 

The text of section 212(d)(5) is clear that the parole authority was 

intended to be used on a case-by-case basis to meet specific needs, and 

not as a supplement to Congressionally-established immigration policy. 

In recent years, however, parole has been used increasingly to admit 

entire categories of aliens who do not qualify for admission under any 

other category in immigration law, with the intent that they will remain 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 14 of 34 PageID 14
15

permanently in the United States. This contravenes the intent of section 

212(d)(5), but also illustrates why further, specific limitations on the 

Attorney General’s discretion are necessary.

H.R. Rep. No. 104-469, at 140 (1996) (emphasis added).

41. Congress emphasized that DHS “may not parole into the United States 

an alien who is a refugee unless the Attorney General determines that compelling 

reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the 

alien be paroled into the United States rather than be admitted as a refugee[.]” 8 

U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(B). See also Texas v. Biden, Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 994 (5th 

Cir. 2021). 

42. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently noted, 

“[q]uintessential modern uses of the parole power include, for example, paroling 

aliens who do not qualify for an admission category but have an urgent need for 

medical care in the United States and paroling aliens who qualify for a visa but are 

waiting for it to become available.” Id. at 947. 

B. The Obama Administration Creates the First Central American 

Minors Program in 2014 Without Congressional Authorization.

43. Following three years of increasing apprehensions of minors along the 

southwest border—roughly 24,000 in FY2012, 39,000 in FY2013, and 69,000 in 

FY20143—the Obama Administration unveiled the Central American Minors 

Program in the 2014 Report to Congress on the Proposed Refugee Admissions for 

Fiscal Year 2015. U.S. Dep’t of State, Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 

3 These numbers reflect only encounters by U.S. Border Patrol accessed at https://bit.ly/3qjEtVo. 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 15 of 34 PageID 15
16

2015 at iii-iv (Sept. 14, 2014), https://bit.ly/3mnxZUd. The report stated that the 

Obama Administration “planned establishment of in-country refugee programs for 

minors in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.” Id. Noting the exponential rise in 

the number of unaccompanied alien children crossing the southwest border, the 

stated purpose of the program was “to reduce unlawful and dangerous migration to 

the United States[.]” Id. In other words, the Obama Administration created the 

program as a mechanism to decrease the number of unaccompanied alien children 

crossing the southwest border. 

44. On or about November 14, 2014, DOS and DHS issued a joint press 

release announcing a two-prong program and providing details on eligibility in a fact 

sheet. Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Dep’t. of State, InCountry Refugee/Parole Program for Minors in El Salvador, Guatemala, and 

Honduras with Parents Lawfully Present in the United States (Nov. 14, 2014),

https://bit.ly/3yJBgC8. At no time did DOS or DHS issue a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or otherwise provide an opportunity for meaningful notice and comment, 

or any alternative means of stakeholder input, prior to the November 2014 statement. 

45. The first prong, known as the CAM Refugee Program, permitted 

nationals of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to apply for their children to be 

screened for refugee status eligibility in their country of nationality. Id. 

46. To qualify, the parent in the United States had to be at least eighteen 

(18) years of age and must be within certain immigration statuses. Specifically, the 

qualifying parent was required to be either a lawful permanent resident or a recipient 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 16 of 34 PageID 16
17

of temporary protected status, parole, deferred action, Deferred Enforced Departure, 

or withholding of removal. Id. 

47. The qualifying child had to be the biological, step, or legally adopted 

child of the qualifying parent, under twenty-one (21) years of age, unmarried, and a 

national of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras. Id. 

48. While billed as a program for children to relocate to the United States

to join their parents, applications remained low. 

49. The Obama Administration subsequently expanded the program to 

deem certain adults were eligible under CAM, including an in-country parent of the 

qualifying child, either married to the qualifying parent or not. U.S. Dep’t of State, 

Expansion of the Central American Minors (CAM) Program (Nov. 15, 2016),

https://bit.ly/3mlVJIe.

50. Through the program, qualifying parents would file Form DS-7699, 

Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) for Minors Who Are Nationals of El Salvador, 

Guatemala, and Honduras. DOS would review the affidavits and those provided 

access to the program would begin with data collection at an RSC and ultimately a 

refugee eligibility interview by a USCIS officer specifically trained to determine 

eligibility pursuant to the definition of a refugee.

51. The second prong, the CAM Parole Program, afforded any alien found 

ineligible for refugee status an opportunity to be automatically considered for 

significant interest parole into the United States. 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 17 of 34 PageID 17
18

52. By December 2016, filings totaled 9,916 affidavits in various stages of 

the CAM process. The program saw an approximate 25% approval rate for the CAM 

Refugee Program and a far larger number approved under the CAM Parole Program. 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv. Ombudsman, Recommendation on the 

Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program (Dec. 21, 2016),

https://bit.ly/3ecnTB8. Specifically, the former USCIS Ombudsman noted that “the 

majority of CAM applicants are granted parole rather than refugee status after a 

USCIS interview. Id. at 25. And as noted by one district court years later, “[f]om its 

inception, the CAM Program granted parole broadly. Throughout its operation, the 

Program approved approximately 99% of beneficiaries who were interviewed and 

considered for parole.” S.A. v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2018). 

53. While filings remained low, nearly 40,000 unaccompanied alien children 

were apprehended along the southwest border in Fiscal Year 2015 and an additional 

approximate 59,700 were apprehended in Fiscal Year 2016, see United States Border 

Patrol, Total Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions by Month, 

https://bit.ly/3qjEtVo—the opposite result of its goal of “reduc[ing] unlawful and 

dangerous migration to the United States.” U.S. Dep’t of State, Proposed Refugee 

Admissions for Fiscal Year 2015 at iii-iv (Sept. 14, 2014), https://bit.ly/3mnxZUd

C. The Trump Administration Terminates the CAM Program.

54. On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13767, 

directing the Secretary of DHS to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole 

authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA...is exercised only on a case-by-caseCase 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 18 of 34 PageID 18
19

basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute[.]” Exec. Order No. 13767, 

82 Fed. Reg. 8793 (Jan. 30, 2017).

55. DHS subsequently conducted a review of the program pursuant to the 

Executive Order. As part of that review:

DHS found that as of July 13, 2017, the CAM Program had approved 

99% of the beneficiaries who had been interviewed as refugees or 

recommended them for parole (30% as refugees, 69% for parole) and that 

only 1% had been denied both refugee status and parole. DHS’s review 

determined that “the CAM Parole program provided parole very broadly 

and not in accordance with the statu[t]e and the President’s Executive 

Order.”

S.A. v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2018).

56. The Trump Administration subsequently terminated the entire CAM 

Program, phasing out the CAM Parole Program and then the CAM Refugee Program.

57. On August 16, 2017, DHS published a Notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the termination of the CAM Parole Program. Termination of the Central 

American Minors Parole Program, 82 Fed. Reg. 38926 (Aug. 16, 2017). In rescinding 

the program, DHS noted by way of background, that “[i]n general, under current 

immigration laws, only lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens can file familybased immigrant visa petitions. Therefore, many of the qualifying parents under the 

[CAM Program] are unable to file an immigrant petition for their in-country 

relatives.” Id. DHS described the automatic consideration of parole for applicants who 

were denied refugee status, and then announced that it would no longer consider or 

authorize any parole requests and rescinded the approval of any alien who was 

conditionally approved but who had not yet traveled to the United States. Id. 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 19 of 34 PageID 19
20

58. On November 8, 2017, DOS ended the CAM Refugee Program by 

announcing that it would no longer accept any new applications effective the 

following day. U.S. Dep’t of State, Status of the Central American Minors Program

(Nov. 8, 2017), https://bit.ly/32dMeEa. 

D. The Biden Administration Reinstates the CAM Program.

59. On March 10, 2021, DHS and DOS announced the reinstatement of the 

CAM Program in two phases: (1) identifying and reopening all cases previously filed 

and suspended prior to the 2017 terminations, and (2) expanding the program and 

accepting new applications. U.S. Dep’t of State, Restarting the Central American 

Minors Program (Mar. 10, 2021), https://bit.ly/32o9gYs. 

60. Under the reinstated program and following verification that the 

qualifying parent was still eligible and wished to proceed, DOS would work to contact 

qualifying children in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras and resume processing. 

Id. 

61. DOS and DHS did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking nor 

provide any alternative notice in the Federal Register prior to or following the March 

10 press release.

62. On June 15, 2021, DOS and DHS issued a second joint statement 

announcing the commencement of phase two of the reopening. Specifically, this phase 

was intended to “expand access to the program to a greater number of qualifying 

individuals.” U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. and U.S. Dep’t of State, Joint Statement 

by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of State on 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 20 of 34 PageID 20
21

the Expansion of Access to the Central American Minors Program (June 15, 2021),

https://bit.ly/30KASqp. 

63. DOS and DHS announced that access to the CAM Program would now 

be authorized for parents or legal guardians who do not have status in the United 

States, but instead have a pending asylum application or a pending U-visa petition 

filed before May 21, 2021. Id. 

64. On September 13, 2021, the Defendants announced that applications for 

the CAM Program would be accepted beginning on September 14. See U.S. 

Department of State, Joint Department of State and Department of Homeland 

Security Rollout of the Application Process for the Central American Minors (CAM) 

Program, (Sept. 13, 2021), https://bit.ly/3qjFBs6. 

65. The Defendants still have not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

nor have the Defendants provided any reasoned explanation as to why an exemption 

to notice-and-comment rulemaking would apply in the instant case. 

66. Instead, the reinstituted CAM Program “usurps the power of Congress 

to dictate a national scheme of immigration laws and is contrary to the INA,” and 

interprets statutes where no ambiguity lies. See Memorandum and Order at 33, 

Texas v. U.S., No. 1:18-CV-00068 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 16, 2021).

67. These announcements are more than a general statement of 

departmental policy as they create rights for certain aliens (by expanding the 

universe of those granted parole), and obligations (through required expenditures by 

States, including the Plaintiff States, on healthcare, public education, and driver’s 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 21 of 34 PageID 21
22

licenses. See id. at 19 (citing Pros. & Patients for Customized Case v. Shalala, 56 F. 

3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 1995)). 

68. Moreover, because the previous iteration of the CAM Program resulted 

in the approval of 99% of all applications—and considering the expanded categories 

of qualifying relatives announced by the Biden Administration—it is all but certain 

that the current iteration of the CAM Program will have a similar approval rate. 

E. Irreparable Harms to the Plaintiff States.

69. As the unlawful population of the Plaintiff States continues to grow, the 

strain on the Plaintiff States’ resources and the ability to provide essential services 

such as emergency medical care, education, driver’s licenses, and other public safety 

services will rapidly decline. Additionally, all services will come at a higher cost.

70. While the Plaintiff States may have been able to estimate the population 

of qualifying parents when eligibility required lawful status, the expanded population 

is immeasurable. Border apprehensions have increased exponentially since February 

1, 2021. See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Border Land 

Encounters, https://bit.ly/30Nd0ma (last visited Jan. 27, 2022). 

71. There is simply no accurate method to measure the number of aliens in 

the Plaintiff States without lawful status. Even if the Plaintiff States could estimate 

that population, it would then have to accurately estimate the number of qualifying 

family members in the Northern Triangle to truly calculate the total potential costs 

imposed on the Plaintiff States from the CAM Program. 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 22 of 34 PageID 22
23

72. As an example, as the Plaintiff States use individual school district 

projections to make formula funding choices, a sudden influx of students not 

previously accounted for, would increase education costs above what would have 

otherwise been expended. This would cause a disparity in funding which would have 

dire consequences on each school district’s resources and its ability to provide proper 

levels of education to students.

73. The Plaintiff States must account for anticipated expenditures in 

providing other social services including health care and driver’s licenses and will be 

unable to do so through its budget if it cannot accurately approximate the amount of 

funds expended in providing these services to the qualifying children as they enter. 

74. This affects the Plaintiff States’ quasi-sovereign interests in their 

territory and their ability to properly carry out such interests on behalf of the citizens 

of the State. 

75. The population boom that comes with expanded criteria and a de facto

categorical parole program will irreparably harm the Plaintiff States. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. Agency Action Not in Accordance with Law. 

76. The APA prohibits agency actions that are “not in accordance with law.” 

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

77. Congress has explicitly prescribed the process for immigration, refugee 

admissions, and parole in the INA. The CAM Program—to the extent that it uses 

parole and operates outside of the Refugee Admissions Program—constitutes agency 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 23 of 34 PageID 23
24

action not in accordance with law: it violates the limited authority given to the 

executive department to parole individuals for urgent humanitarian reasons or for 

significant public benefit only, which is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 8 

U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). 

78. The INA does not explicitly or implicitly create any authority in the 

executive branch that includes the ability to create an entire program that 

categorically considers applicants for benefits as applicants for parole. Congress does 

not “hide elephants in mouseholes” of this nature. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking 

Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001); Banks v. Booth, 3 F.4th 445, 449 (D.C. Cir. 2021). If 

it did, there would be no limit on the number of aliens who could be brought into the 

United States. Any administration could circumvent all caps set on immigration 

levels by simply determining general categories that constitute a “significant public 

benefit” or a “urgent humanitarian reason,” reviewing an application from each 

applicant, and paroling all applicants because the administration desires such a 

result. Such a result is directly contrary to the plain text and legislative history of the 

parole statute.

79. The Defendants’ implementation of CAM constitutes an unnecessary 

and ultra vires action in flagrant disregard of express and congressional 

authorization.

B. Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action.

80. The APA prohibits agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an 

abuse of discretion.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Additionally, a rule that fails to include 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 24 of 34 PageID 24
25

stated reasoning is arbitrary and capricious. Action on Smoking & Health v. CAB, 

699 F.2d 1209, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 

1. Lack of Reasoned Decision-Making.

81. The March 10 and June 15 announcements fail to provide a reasoned 

explanation for resuming the CAM Program. 

82. The announcements merely rely on the same statement that the Obama 

Administration used when CAM initially began in 2014. Specifically, it states that 

the program “provides a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the risks incurred in 

the attempt to migrate to the United States irregularly” while remaining silent 

regarding its legality or basis in law. 

83. Moreover, this explanation provides no insight on the issues and facts 

and could not be considered to reasonably provide any interested parties with 

sufficient insight on the subject matter. American Iron & Steel Institute v. EPA, 568 

F.2d 284, 293 (3d Cir. 1977). 

84. Additionally, the Defendants failed to assess the costs of the intended 

action and to base the decision on “reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, 

economic” data “concerning the need for, and consequences of” the rule. Exec. Order 

No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as amended. 

85. In the instant case, the Defendants failed to present any evidence that 

they considered the economic cost or consequences of their actions. The Defendants’ 

announcements were geared solely to the benefit of the aliens eligible for the program 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 25 of 34 PageID 25
26

with nothing to address the undue burden that such increase in population may carry 

for Plaintiff States or any other interested party. 

86. Without reasoned analysis and without adhering to the requirements of

longstanding executive orders, the announcements to restart and expand the CAM 

Program constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action. 

2. Failure to Consider Alternative Approaches.

87. In designing the CAM program and announcing it via press release, the 

Defendants failed to consider alternative approaches to managing illegal 

immigration. A DHS action is arbitrary and capricious if it is issued “without any 

consideration whatsoever of a [more limited] policy.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. 

Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1912 (2020) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. 

Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 51 (1983)). 

88. The March 10 and June 15 announcements categorically resume a 

refugee and parole program without considering any other approach that may prove 

less burdensome on the Plaintiff States. 

89. By omitting any analysis in the announcements, the Defendants “failed 

to consider important aspects of the problem” that it was attempting to resolve. Id.

at 1910 (alterations and citations omitted).

3. Failure to Consider State Reliance Interests.

90. Even if the Defendants had considered the costs and benefits to the 

United States from the implementation of the CAM Program during a time of 

unprecedented insecurity at the border, the Defendants had an obligation to consider 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 26 of 34 PageID 26
27

the costs that the Plaintiff States would bear from the implementation of CAM. They 

transparently failed to do so, having made their decision without seeking input, 

whether directly or through a notice and comment period, from any of the Plaintiff 

States. They flatly ignored the harms that would fall on the Plaintiff States, which 

“bear[]” many of the consequences of unlawful immigration.” Arizona v. United

States, 567 U.S. 387, 397 (2012). The Defendant’s failure to consider such costs was 

arbitrary and capricious.

91. As stated above, the Plaintiff States particularly experience increased 

costs associated with illegal immigration—which the CAM Program encourages—and 

with the provision of services to would-be beneficiaries of the CAM Program. The 

Defendants particularly failed to consider whether “there was ‘legitimate reliance’ on 

the” prior administration’s cessation of the CAM Program as an indispensable tool to 

address the migration crisis by diminishing incentives for illegal immigration and 

enabling DHS to better focus its resources on legitimate asylum claims. See Dep't of 

Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020) 

(“When an agency changes course . . . it must be cognizant that longstanding policies 

may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.”) 

(cleaned up). Certainly, none of the Defendants’ press releases analyzed those costs

or the Plaintiff States reliance interest. This, too, was arbitrary and capricious. 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 27 of 34 PageID 27
28

C. Lack of Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking.

92. The Defendants failed to conduct the required notice and comment 

process prior to restarting the CAM Program, pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedures Act (“APA”).

93. The APA defines “rule” as “an agency statement of general or particular 

applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or 

policy[.]” 5 U.S.C. §551(4).

94. Further, the APA requires agencies issuing rules to conduct notice-andcomment rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. §553.

95. The announcements resuming the CAM Program constitute a 

substantive rulemaking within the APA’s definition, and no exceptions to notice-andcomment rulemaking were invoked nor are any exceptions available. They create 

affirmative rights and obligations and are binding on the government without 

discretion. 

96. The two announcements created both rights and obligations under the 

law and confers immigration benefits on eligible aliens. Texas v. U.S., 809 F.3d 134, 

171 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377, 383 (D.C. Cir. 2002)); 

Memorandum and Order at 19-22, Texas v. U.S., No. 1:18-CV-00068 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 

16, 2021) (citing Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 

1891, 1905-06) (2020)). Additionally, the announcements took immediate effect 

allowing any eligible alien present in the United States to derive a substantive 

benefit. Id. at 22 (citing Shalala, F.3d at 595)). 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 28 of 34 PageID 28
29

97. Additionally, these announcements imposed obligations on the federal 

government to automatically adjudicate requests for parole without requiring an

application for parole and in contravention of statute. 

98. While the announcements purport to provide discretion in adjudicating 

parole requests, it is apparent from its application on the government that it is meant 

to be binding. Memorandum and Order at 37, Texas v. U.S., No. 1:18-CV-00068 (S.D. 

Tex. Jul. 16, 2021) (citing Texas v. U.S., 809 F.3d at 173 (quoting Gen. Elec. 290 F.3d 

at 383). In the instant case, the government is required to automatically review each 

denied refugee referral for parole as a matter of “discretion.” This is inconsistent with 

the letter and spirit of the statute and is at odds with the requirement that parole be 

granted only in limited circumstances. 

99. That applicants for parole under CAM do not need to file a stand-alone 

application for parole suggests that it is not discretionary to consider these requests 

and, instead, forms the basis for a categorical parole program. This, on its face, 

removes any true discretion from the government and constitutes a substantive rule. 

D. Failure to Take Care that the Laws be Faithfully Executed.

100. The Constitution requires that the President, as well as those exercising 

power on his behalf, “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. CONST. 

art. II § 3; see also U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 1 (vesting “[t]he executive Power” in the 

President). 

101. The March 10 and June 15 announcements are unconstitutional because 

they direct executive officers to refrain from enforcing federal immigration law. The 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 29 of 34 PageID 29
30

INA states that parole may be considered “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent 

humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” INA §212(d)(5)(A) (emphasis 

added). While on its face, the parole program is predicated on case-by-case 

determination, the automation of the program, without need to apply separately for 

parole, makes it a de facto categorical parole program. 

102. Additionally, the Defendants failed to articulate how paroling these 

aliens into the United States, after they are found ineligible for refugee status, 

constitutes either an urgent humanitarian reason or a significant public benefit to 

the United States, as mandated in the statutorily prescribed case-by-case analysis. 

103. Directing USCIS to begin adjudicating these parole requests constitutes 

a government obligation, is contrary to statute, violative of the law, and therefore 

violates the constitutional duty of faithful execution. 

104. Unconstitutional agency action or inaction violates the APA, see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706, and can be enjoined on that basis. However, violations of the Take Care Clause 

are actionable independent of the APA, and the Court can enjoin the Defendants’ 

violations of their Take Care obligations under its inherent equitable powers. See

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 327-28 (2015) (discussing 

“a long history of judicial review of illegal executive action, tracing back to England.”). 

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 30 of 34 PageID 30
31

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Plaintiff States asks this Court to enter 

judgment in their favor and to provide the following relief:

a. Declare the Central American Minors Program unlawful and set it aside to 

the extent that it provides any benefits outside of the contours of the 

Refugee Admissions Program;

b. Enjoin the Defendants’ use of the parole authority under the Central 

American Minors Program;

c. Enjoin the Defendants from carrying out the CAM Program until it engages 

in rulemaking pursuant to the APA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking or 

pursuant to a lawful exception from those requirements;

d. Award the Plaintiff States their costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

e. Award such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: January 28, 2022

Gene P. Hamilton

Virginia Bar No. 80434

Vice-President

 and General Counsel

America First Legal Foundation

300 Independence Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20003

(202) 964-3721

gene.hamilton@aflegal.org

/s/ Aaron F. Reitz

KEN PAXTON

 Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER

 First Assistant Attorney General

AARON F. REITZ

 Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy

MICHELLE GHETTI*

 Special Counsel

Office of the Attorney General

PO Box 12548 (MC 009)

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 31 of 34 PageID 31
32

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Tel: (512) 463-4139

Fax: (512) 474-2697

Aaron.Reitz@oag.texas.gov

Michelle.Ghetti@oag.texas.gov

Counsel for the State of Texas

TREG R. TAYLOR

 Attorney General of Alaska

Cori M. Mills*

 Deputy Attorney General

Department of Law

P.O. Box 110300

Juneau, AK 99811

Phone: 907-465-3600 

Fax: 907-465-2520

Counsel for the State of Alaska

LESLIE RUTLEDGE

 Attorney General of Arkansas

Dylan L. Jacobs*

 Assistant Solicitor General

Office of the Arkansas Attorney General

323 Center Street, Suite 200

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Tel: (501) 682-2007

Fax: (501) 682-2591

Counsel for the State of Arkansas

ASHLEY MOODY

 Attorney General of Florida

James H. Percival* (FBN 1016188)

 Deputy Attorney General of Legal

Policy

Office of the Attorney General 

The Capitol, Pl-01 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 

(850) 414-3300 

(850) 410-2672 (fax) 

james.percival@myfloridalegal.com

Counsel for the State of Florida

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 32 of 34 PageID 32
33

THEODORE E. ROKITA

 Attorney General of Indiana

Betsy M. DeNardi*

Cory C. Voight*

 Directors of Complex Litigation

Indiana Government Center South

302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Betsy.DeNardi@atg.in.gov

Cory.Voight@atg.in.gov

Counsel for the State of Indiana

ERIC S. SCHMITT

 Attorney General of Missouri

D. John Sauer*

 Solicitor General

Jesus A. Osete*

 Deputy Attorney General

Missouri Attorney General’s Office

Post Office Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Tel: (573) 751-8870

Fax: (573) 751-0774

John.Sauer@ago.mo.gov

Jesus.Osete@ago.mo.gov

Counsel for the State of Missouri

AUSTIN KNUDSEN

 Attorney General of Montana

Kristin Hansen

 Lieutenant General

David M.S. Dewhirst

 Solicitor General

Christian B. Corrigan 

 Assistant Solicitor General

215 North Sanders

P.O. Box 201401

Helena, MT 59620-1401

Phone: 406-444-2026

Fax: 406-444-3549

david.dewhirst@mt.gov

christian.corrigant@mt.gov

Counsel for the State of Montana

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 33 of 34 PageID 33
34

JOHN M. O’CONNOR 

 Attorney General of Oklahoma

Bryan Cleveland* 

 Assistant Solicitor General 

Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General

313 NE 21st St.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405) 521-3921

bryan.cleveland@oag.ok.gov

Counsel for the State of Oklahoma

* Admission application forthcoming

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 1 Filed 01/28/22 Page 34 of 34 PageID 34