Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Review on Border Policy

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision on this border policy could significantly affect the resources and operations of immigrant advocacy organizations in Illinois, particularly those in Cook County and Chicago that provide legal aid and support services to asylum seekers.

---

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration on Monday requested that the Supreme Court review a federal appeals court decision that restricts the government's ability to remove immigrants who have entered the U.S. from Mexico without first offering them an opportunity to seek asylum. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer informed the justices that the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could jeopardize a measure Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin described as an "indispensable" tool for border management. The case involves a proclamation issued by President Donald Trump. This proclamation states that the number of noncitizens entering the United States has strained the existing system, hindering federal control of the border. It characterizes the situation at the southern border as an "invasion." The proclamation directs immigration officials to expedite the removal of individuals who cross the border illegally, bypassing typical processes and protections, including the right to request asylum. A coalition of immigrants and three immigrant advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit in federal court. They contended that the proclamation and its implementing guidance violated federal immigration law. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued a 128-page opinion blocking the Trump administration from implementing these restrictions on removal and asylum. Moss acknowledged the Executive Branch faces substantial difficulties in preventing unauthorized entries and processing a significant backlog of asylum claims. However, Moss ruled that neither the Constitution nor federal immigration law grants the president authority to establish an alternative immigration system. On April 24, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Moss's decision. Judge J. Michelle Childs stated that the "text, structure, and history" of federal immigration law indicate that while Congress may have empowered the president to temporarily bar undocumented immigrants from entry, it did not grant Trump the "expansive removal authority" asserted in the proclamation. Childs concluded that both the proclamation and the agency guidance violate federal law by circumventing the standard deportation process and disregarding federal statutes that allow individuals to apply for asylum or withholding of removal, a limited form of deportation protection. Sauer told the court Monday that before the presidential proclamation took effect, the U.S.-Mexico border experienced an influx of individuals. He described this situation as creating conditions that criminal and terrorist organizations utilized. Sauer stated that the restrictions imposed by the proclamation have constituted effective parts of the president's response to this influx. While the D.C. Circuit's decision is currently paused, allowing the government to maintain the asylum restrictions, Sauer warned that any progress made by the government could be lost if the ruling takes effect. Sauer cited the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in *Trump v. Hawaii*, which upheld the Trump administration's "travel ban." This executive order from 2017 restricted immigration from eight countries. Sauer emphasized that in that case, the justices agreed to review a lower-court decision that limited the president's power over the entry of noncitizens. He argued a similar review is warranted in this current case, stating, "This case is even more important" than the travel ban case. Sauer also contended that the Supreme Court should intervene because lower courts allowed the case to proceed as a class action. He argued that if the challengers succeed, the ruling would benefit a broad group of plaintiffs, including noncitizens currently abroad with no immediate plans to enter the U.S. Sauer asserted that approving an "effectively universal class" of plaintiffs circumvented the Supreme Court's ruling last year in *Trump v. CASA*, which held that federal courts cannot issue "universal" or "nationwide" injunctions preventing the government from enforcing policies across the country. The challengers' response to the government's petition for review is due by Sept. 23.