WASHINGTON—In the early days of Donald Trump’s second term as President, he issued a proclamation stating that the United States was being invaded at the southern border, and sent troops to help repel that invasion and close the border. So far, his efforts have been spectacularly successful; encounters with illegal aliens at the border have plummeted.
But anti-borders activist plaintiffs brought suit in DC federal district court, claiming that the President had exceeded his lawful power. The district court agreed, concluding that the government could only use standard, lengthy removal proceedings—not proclamations, troops, and expulsions—to deal with the flood of unlawful crossings, and granted an injunction against the Administration’s border closure.
In response, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed an emergency brief in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals supporting an application to stay, or suspend, that injunction.
In its brief, IRLI shows that the President not only has inherent, constitutional power to expel aliens, but that a law passed by Congress in 1952 gives him exceedingly broad powers to suspend the entry of aliens. In fact, in the cases upholding Trump’s travel restrictions in his first term, the Supreme Court refused to set any limits to the President’s discretion under this law. He is free to find the entry of any class of aliens detrimental to the national interest, and suspend the entry of such aliens.
And, IRLI points out, the DC Circuit has already held that, at the border, such a power implies the enforcement mechanism of expulsion.
“A federal district court has no business stopping the President from closing the border in a time of crisis using the very method of doing so specified by Congress,” said Dale Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “The President judged that ordinary removal procedures were not enough to solve this crisis, and invoked his clear statutory authority to get the job done. We hope the DC Circuit declines to let the President’s power and flexibility in this vital area be annulled, and suspends the lower court’s injunction.”
The case is Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Noem, 1:25-cv-00306 (D.D.C.).
