The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to take up a dispute over a key Supreme Court border policy question, seeking reversal of a lower court ruling that limits the government’s ability to rapidly remove migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border without first allowing them to seek asylum.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “threatens to dismantle” what Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has called an indispensable tool for managing the border.
Supreme Court border policy challenge centers on 2025 proclamation
The case turns on a proclamation President Donald Trump issued shortly after beginning his second term. Citing the large volume of noncitizens entering the country and the strain on federal resources, the proclamation states that conditions at the southern border qualify as an invasion. It instructs immigration officials to swiftly remove people who cross illegally without the usual process or protections, including the opportunity to apply for asylum.
A group of immigrants and three advocacy organizations sued in federal court, arguing that the proclamation and related implementation guidance violate federal immigration statutes.
District court blocked restrictions, D.C. Circuit affirmed
In a 128-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss halted the administration from enforcing the removal and asylum restrictions. He acknowledged the Executive Branch faces significant challenges in deterring unlawful entry and managing a backlog of asylum claims, but concluded that neither the Constitution nor federal immigration law permits the president to devise an alternative immigration system.
On April 24, the D.C. Circuit upheld Moss’s ruling. Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote that the text, structure, and history of immigration law make clear that while Congress authorized the president to temporarily block entry of noncitizens lacking proper documents, it did not grant the expansive removal authority asserted in the proclamation. The court held that both the proclamation and the agency guidance contravene federal law by bypassing standard deportation procedures and discarding laws that allow individuals to seek asylum or withholding of removal, a narrower protection than asylum.
Administration cites national security, prior precedent
In Monday’s filing, Sauer argued that before the proclamation took effect, the border was overwhelmed by an influx of migrants that created chaotic conditions exploited by criminal and terrorist organizations, threatening national security. He described the proclamation’s restrictions as the most important and effective components of the president’s response. Although the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is currently stayed, preserving the restrictions for now, Sauer warned that progress could evaporate if the decision is allowed to take effect.
Sauer also invoked the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the administration’s travel ban that limited entry for nationals of several countries. He noted that in that case the justices agreed to review a lower-court decision curtailing presidential authority over the flow of noncitizens and argued that the same approach is warranted here, calling the present dispute even more consequential.
Class action scope and injunction limits at issue
The government further urged the justices to intervene because the lower courts permitted the case to proceed as a class action encompassing what Sauer described as an astoundingly broad group, including noncitizens abroad with no imminent plans to enter the United States. By approving what he called an effectively universal class, Sauer contended, the courts enabled an end run around last year’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, which held that federal courts lack authority to issue universal or nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement across the country.
The challengers’ response to the government’s petition is due Sept. 23.