States can and have sued the Biden administration over its handling of the southern border, particularly alleging failures to secure the border and enforce immigration laws. Several states argue that the federal government’s immigration policies under President Biden have exceeded statutory authority, violated constitutional duties, and caused harm to states by increasing illegal immigration and related burdens.
The legal basis for these lawsuits often rests on claims that the Biden administration’s policies are arbitrary, capricious, or exceed the authority granted by Congress under immigration law. States also invoke the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, which requires the President to faithfully execute the laws. For example, a coalition of 16 states filed suit challenging Biden’s changes to parole and green card policies for undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens, arguing these policies were unlawful and harmful to states. A federal court permanently vacated those policies, indicating judicial willingness to check executive immigration actions perceived as overreach.
Other states have passed their own laws to address what they see as federal inaction on border security and immigration enforcement. Oklahoma enacted House Bill 4156 to impose penalties on those who enter or reenter the country illegally, aiming to fill gaps left by the federal government. This law faced legal challenges but gained support from multiple state attorneys general and even the Trump Department of Justice, reflecting a broader coalition of states seeking to assert their interests when they believe the federal government is failing to act.
Florida also engaged in a prolonged legal battle against Biden administration immigration policies, particularly targeting parole programs that allowed undocumented immigrants to be released from detention. Courts ruled some of these policies violated federal law, though the Biden administration appealed. Changes in administration have influenced the trajectory of these cases, with some disputes ending or shifting as policies evolve.
The lawsuits and state laws reflect a broader tension between federal immigration authority and state interests. States argue that when the federal government fails to secure the border or enforce immigration laws effectively, states bear the consequences—such as increased costs for law enforcement, social services, and public safety challenges. They contend that they have standing to sue because these harms are concrete and particularized.
However, these legal battles are complex. Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, and courts often defer to the executive branch’s discretion in immigration matters. States must show that the administration’s policies cause them direct injury and that the courts can provide a remedy. Some lawsuits have succeeded in blocking or vacating specific policies, while others face injunctions or ongoing appeals.
In addition to state lawsuits, immigrant rights groups have also
