HR-3725-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Addison McDowell (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the Secretary of Homeland Security's authority to grant immigration parole — a tool that allows certain non-citizens to temporarily enter the U.S. outside normal visa channels. It would reinforce the existing "case-by-case" requirement, bar parole for nationals of designated "countries of concern" unless the Secretary of State issues an individual waiver, and cap total annual parole grants at 3,000 starting in fiscal year 2029. It would also grant state attorneys general standing to sue the federal government in federal court if they believe the parole rules have been violated and their state has suffered at least $100 in financial harm.
Who benefits
State governments and attorneys general, who would gain a new legal tool to challenge federal parole decisions in court. Communities and workers who believe large-scale parole programs have increased labor market competition or strained public services. Border security advocates who argue tighter parole limits reduce unauthorized entry pathways. Visa applicants who go through standard legal channels, who may face less competition for limited immigration slots.
Who is hurt
Non-citizens from designated "countries of concern" who would be categorically barred from parole absent a State Department waiver, including those fleeing persecution or urgent humanitarian crises. Individuals currently relying on parole-based programs (e.g., humanitarian parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans) who could lose access. Employers — particularly in agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare — who have used parole programs to fill labor gaps. Refugee and asylum advocacy organizations whose clients depend on parole as a bridge to protection. Family members of U.S. residents or citizens who used parole to reunite while awaiting visa processing.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the parole statute was always intended as a narrow, individualized tool, and that granting parole to millions of people at once — as the bill's findings cite occurred under the prior administration — is a categorical misuse of the authority that bypasses Congress's role in setting immigration levels. They contend the 3,000-person annual cap restores the original statutory intent and that the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Texas v. Biden affirmed that mass parole grants are inconsistent with the law's case-by-case requirement. They further argue that giving state attorneys general standing corrects an accountability gap exposed by United States v. Texas (2023), where states were found to lack standing to challenge federal enforcement priorities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the 3,000-person annual cap is so restrictive it would effectively eliminate a humanitarian tool that has been used for decades across administrations of both parties — including for Vietnamese refugees, Cuban nationals, and Ukrainian evacuees — and that eliminating this flexibility would leave the executive branch unable to respond to sudden humanitarian crises. They contend the country-of-concern bar creates a categorical exclusion that may conflict with the Fifth Amendment's due process protections for individuals with urgent humanitarian needs, as recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis. They further argue that legislatively granting states standing to sue over federal enforcement priorities directly contradicts the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Texas (2023) and risks fragmenting uniform federal immigration policy through 50 separate state lawsuits.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) gives Congress broad authority over immigration, while the Take Care Clause (Art. II, §3) grants the executive enforcement discretion. The bill's state standing provision directly engages United States v. Texas (2023), where the Supreme Court held states generally lack standing to challenge federal immigration enforcement priorities — Congress may attempt to legislatively override this by statute, though courts will independently assess that question post-Loper Bright. The country-of-concern bar and the hard numerical cap may also face Fifth Amendment due process challenges for individuals with urgent humanitarian claims, consistent with the Court's reasoning in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001).
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by imposing a statutory cap and categorical restrictions on executive parole discretion, reducing the Secretary of Homeland Security's flexibility; the State Department gains a new gatekeeping role via the waiver process for nationals of countries of concern; and state attorneys general would gain a new judicial check on DHS through legislatively conferred standing.
Historical precedent
The LEGAL Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act (2000) and various appropriations riders have previously attempted to define or limit parole use, though no prior statute has imposed a hard numerical annual cap as low as 3,000.