Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. President Trump, et al
Case Overview
3 immigrant advocacy organizations sued President Trump, DHS, the State Department, Department of Justice, and ICE with the assistance of the ACLU over the executive order, "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion." The suit alleges that the order violates the asylum statute, the removal statute, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the separation of powers.
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
The Application
Plaintiffs argue the proclamation unlawfully restricts statutory asylum rights and bypasses required administrative procedures; defendants contend the proclamation is a valid exercise of presidential immigration and national security authority.
The Conclusion
The case is pending before Judge Randolph D. Moss in the U.S. District Court for D.C. following its filing on February 3, 2025.
No circuit court data for this case.
No Supreme Court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
3 immigrant advocacy organizations sued President Trump, DHS, the State Department, Department of Justice, and ICE with the assistance of the ACLU over the executive order, "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion." The suit alleges that the order violates the asylum statute, the removal statute, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the separation of powers.
Issue
Whether an executive order limiting asylum eligibility and immigrant access violates the asylum statute, INA, FARSA, TVPRA, and APA, and whether it violates separation of powers.
Rule
The asylum statute permits certain aliens to seek protection from persecution regardless of port of entry; FARSA prohibits removal to persecutory countries; TVPRA requires special protections for trafficking victims; the APA requires notice-and-comment rulemaking for substantive rules unless excepted.
Analysis
Plaintiffs argue the proclamation unlawfully restricts statutory asylum rights and bypasses required administrative procedures; defendants contend the proclamation is a valid exercise of presidential immigration and national security authority.
Conclusion
The case is pending before Judge Randolph D. Moss in the U.S. District Court for D.C. following its filing on February 3, 2025.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support