The Trump administration has secured a federal consent decree declaring one of former President Joe Biden’s mass-migrant parole programs unlawful and preventing any future administration from reviving a similar system for the next 15 years.
The settlement, approved by Judge T. Kent Wetherell in federal court in northern Florida, emerged from a lawsuit filed by the state of Florida in 2023 and places strict limits on how the federal government may use the Department of Homeland Security’s parole authority under Section 1182(d)(5).
Under the agreement, the federal government cannot use parole authority to create categorical processing pathways at the border designed to ease detention capacity or improve operational efficiency.
The decree also bars policies that would shift removal proceedings from the border to the interior or postpone them entirely.
In practical terms, the consent decree blocks any attempt to recreate the large-scale parole pipeline used during the Biden administration and creates a judicial barrier that would confront any future effort to reopen it.
How the Biden Parole System Operated
As previously noted by The Washington Times, parole authority was designed as a narrow, case-by-case humanitarian tool.
During the Biden administration, critics argued that it was expanded into a broad entry mechanism.
Under former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, categorical parole programs admitted tens of thousands of Afghans, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and migrants from multiple other countries.
Former immigration judge Andrew “Art” Arthur estimated that nearly 3 million migrants were paroled into the United States during the Biden era, accounting for a substantial share of those who ultimately settled in the country.
Rather than seeking legislative changes from Congress, the administration relied on parole authority to reduce pressure at the southern border following policy reversals from the prior administration.
A 2022 deposition cited in Florida’s legal challenge featured Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz acknowledging that Biden-era policy changes made detention and removal more difficult.
Arthur summarized the significance of that testimony:
“When Moody deposed Raul Ortiz, the entire Biden administration catch-and-release scheme, which up to that point had been operating under the wire, was exposed.”
That deposition became central to Florida’s 2023 lawsuit and ultimately led to the consent decree now binding the federal government.
A 15-Year Constraint on Executive Power
Unlike a policy memo or executive order, the consent decree restricts executive discretion for 15 years, spanning multiple potential presidential terms.
Arthur described the long-term impact:
“This consent decree will prevent a future administration from abusing DHS’s limited parole authority in the way that the Biden administration did.”
He also projected parole admissions could fall to only a few hundred per year under the ruling, aligning more closely with the statute’s original case-by-case intent.
Jae Williams, press secretary for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, linked the legal outcome to broader border enforcement:
“We thank the Trump administration for working with our office to obtain this result, which ensures that the next Democratic administration cannot abuse the parole system to allow another invasion of illegal aliens into our country.”
The Trump administration had already moved to suspend Biden-era parole programs and is pursuing the removal of migrants who entered through those pathways.
The decree transforms that policy stance into a court-enforceable mandate.
Legal Backlash and the ‘Sue-and-Settle’ Debate
Critics have pointed to the “sue and settle” strategy behind the decree, in which litigation against a receptive administration results in a binding agreement that bypasses Congress and traditional rulemaking.
Jennifer Coberly, a lawyer with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued the decree conflicts with statutory discretion:
“The biggest thing about this is it’s directly contrary to law.
“Generally, [the law] does provide discretion to the administration, and this is saying you can’t do that for 15 years.”
She suggested certain Biden-era parole pathways, such as programs allowing migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to fly directly into U.S. airports, might fall outside the decree’s scope, though that interpretation has not been confirmed by either party and remains unresolved.
Why the Decree Matters
Executive actions can be reversed, and regulations rewritten.
A federal consent decree, however, is enforceable through the courts.
Any future administration seeking to restore categorical parole at the border would need judicial approval to dissolve the agreement, creating a far higher legal barrier than a simple policy change.
Nearly 3 million migrants entered the United States through a parole framework that a federal court has now declared unlawful.
Those programs have been suspended, and the legal authority used to justify them is now restricted for 15 years.
The administration that created the programs did not respond to a request for comment.
The consent decree, however, establishes a binding legal reality that will shape federal immigration policy well beyond a single presidency.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.