A state may sue over the limits on granting parole
What the document says“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the limitation under subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security”
Subsection (d)(2) of section 3 adds a new subparagraph (C) to section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It gives a state attorney general, or another authorized state officer, standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security in a federal district court for injunctive relief, on an allegation that the limitation in subparagraph (A) of that paragraph, that parole be granted solely case by case and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, was violated in a way that harms the state or its residents.
What the document actually says“The attorney general of a State, or other authorized State officer, alleging a violation of the limitation under subparagraph (A) that parole solely be granted on a case-by-case basis and solely for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit, that harms such State or its residents shall have standing to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security”
A state's top law officer may sue over parole. The claim is that parole was not given one case at a time, or not for a listed reason.
Parole here means letting a person in or out for a short time. The new words point back to a rule that limits when it may be used.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.