Federal Court Rules Against Trump’s “Invasion” Executive Order
Today, in Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal and Educational Services v. Noem, US District Court Judge Randolph Moss issued an important decision blocking Donald Trump’s January 20 “invasion” executive proclamation, which sought to foreclose nearly all pathways to legal migration and asylum applications for migrants crossing the southern border. Trump claimed the order is authorized by both federal statutes and the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
Judge Moss rejects both grounds for the order, in a long and detailed 128-page ruling. Interestingly, however, he rejects the administration’s constitutional argument without defining what qualifies as an “invasion.” Here is his summary of the decision:
For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that neither the INA [statute] nor the Constitution grants the President or the Agency Defendants authority to replace the comprehensive rules and procedures set forth in the INA and the governing regulations with an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum or withholding of removal and without complying with the regulations governing CAT protection. The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country. But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country, and, as the Department of Justice correctly concluded less than nine months ago, neither § 1182(f) nor § 1185(a) provides the President with the unilateral authority to limit the rights of aliens present in the United States to apply for asylum. Nor can Article II’s Vesting Clause or Article IV’s Invasion Clause be read to grant the President or his delegees authority to adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated. As the Framers understood, “every breach of the fundamental laws,” even when “dictated by necessity,” undermines respect for the rule of law and “forms a precedent
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
