Over the course of June, no illegal immigrants were permitted across the nation’s southern border, thanks to the policies of President Donald Trump. Just over 6,000 illegal immigrants were encountered by U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), but border czar Tom Homan reported that “none of the 6,070 were released into the U.S. ZERO.” Homan, a border security veteran of over 40 years, asserted, “President Trump has created the most secure border in the history of the nation and the data proves it. We have never seen numbers this low. Never.” But a federal judge in Washington, D.C. could unsecure “the most secure border in the history of the nation.”

Immediately after returning to the White House in January, Trump signed an executive order declaring the illegal immigration crisis at the nation’s southern border to be an “invasion” and implementing several border security measures to halt the invasion. One of those measures includes barring illegal immigrants detained after crossing the border illegally or detained attempting to enter the U.S. via a port of entry without a visa or appropriate documentation from “invoking provisions of the [Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)] that would permit their continued presence in the United States,” including claiming asylum.

Judge Randolph Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, an Obama appointee, issued a ruling Wednesday averring that the president did not have the legal authority to declare the nation’s illegal immigration crisis an invasion and illegally suspended asylum claims. “[T]he Court concludes that neither the INA 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,” Moss wrote. He reiterated, “Here, nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance. An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”

Moss noted that the plaintiffs in the case — a group of 13 illegal immigrants and three non-profit organizations providing legal support for illegal immigrants — argued that the president’s proclamation is “an unlawful effort to

supplant the detailed provisions of the INA with an alternative set of immigration laws established by executive ‘fiat.’” The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration’s border security measures overstep the statutory bounds of the INA in expedited removals, deportations, and asylum applications, and “further argue[d] that none of the authorities that Defendants invoke in support of the Proclamation and guidance authorize such a wholesale rewriting of the INA and the governing regulations.” Moss decided “that Plaintiffs have the better of the arguments and that neither the INA nor the Constitution authorizes the changes in immigration law embodied in the Proclamation and implementing guidance.”

Based on these arguments, the Obama-appointed judge decided to vacate Trump’s proclamation and all guidance and policies stemming from it, declaring the proclamation to be “unlawful,” and issue an injunction barring the Trump administration from implementing the proclamation against a specified “class.” Less than a week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions, but Moss devised a way around this stipulation. Instead of issuing a nationwide injunction, the judge decided to “certify a class (or subclass) consisting of all individuals who are or will be subject to the Proclamation and/or its implementation and who are now or will be present in the United States.” In other words, Moss demanded that the Trump administration cease enforcing the directives in the proclamation against any illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. or who will ever enter the U.S.

Moss also denied the Trump administration’s request for a temporary stay. Pointing to the “significant operational concerns” which the judge’s order would necessitate, the Trump administration asked Moss not to implement his order for 14 days, while the administration appeals the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Moss wrote in response, “The Court appreciates those concerns but must also weigh the fact that thousands of individuals will be … removed from the United States pursuant to an unlawful assertion of extra-statutory authority and the risk that, once … removed, their likelihood of obtaining meaningful relief will suffer a significant … setback.”

Immigration Reform Law Institute’s director of litigation Christopher Hajec, who filed a brief in the case supporting the Trump administration, told The Washington Stand that Moss “is wrong.” Hajec said, “As we pointed out in our brief, the president has the power under a 1952 law to suspend the entry of any class of aliens, including ‘invaders’ as he defines them.” He continued, “This erroneous decision strips the president of the powers he needs to meet this crisis, and we will work to get it reversed on appeal.”

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said in comments to TWS, “Here we have yet another federal judge who apparently disagrees with the president’s moves to secure our border and stop the flagrant and unprecedented abuse of our asylum laws.” She continued, “This judge disagrees that what happened was an ‘invasion,’ and apparently wants to force a return to allowing unlimited numbers of illegal migrants to crash our borders under transparently bogus asylum claims.” She added, “It is yet another judge seeking to substitute his own opinion and policy choice for the president’s assessment of the situation and how to handle it.”

“The truth is that our asylum system has been abused and distorted to the point where it is broken,” Vaughan emphasized. “It prevents the government from screening out unvetted and unqualified migrants, and it prevents the government from promptly considering legitimate claims from people who actually need protection, because the frivolous claims have overwhelmed the system,” she explained. She continued, “President Trump had to take extraordinary measures to put a stop to the four years of open borders that allowed criminals, gang members, spies, terrorists, and cartel operatives to walk in among the millions of other illegal migrants hoping to game the system.”

Vaughan said that while Trump “will keep trying, despite this ruling,” to secure the border, “The best solution would be for Congress to fix the asylum system, but until then, the court should, and likely eventually will, recognize that the president may use all the tools available to repel those who seek to illegally breach our borders, even if they are not wearing uniforms of a foreign military.”

Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told TWS that asylum claims were frequently abused under then-President Joe Biden. “One of the most notable features of the flood of asylum-seekers who poured across the border during the Biden administration is that nearly all of them had passed through other countries — often multiple countries — before arriving at the U.S. border and asking for protection,” Mehlman explained. He continued, “Asylum is meant to protect people who fear persecution at the hands of their governments, not to provide them with their ideal landing spot. Once someone is beyond the borders of the country they claim is persecuting them, they should have an obligation to seek protection in the first safe country they arrive in.”

Most illegal immigrant asylum-seekers were “economic migrants, understandably looking to settle in a prosperous country,” Mehlman said, adding that “they understood that during the Biden administration they would likely be processed, released into the U.S. and given work authorization while waiting for a court date many years in the future, during which time they hope to establish other reasons for being allowed to remain here.” He emphasized, “However, that is not the purpose of asylum, and we should not tolerate the abuse of our humanitarian policies.”

“The unprecedented numbers of people entering the U.S. during the Biden administration posed serious public safety and national security threats. The sheer volume and the pressure to process and release people as quickly as possible meant that overwhelmed border agents could not properly vet everyone,” Mehlman explained. He continued, “Inevitably, criminals and national security threats managed to get into the country. Additionally, with border agents tied up processing millions of people with dubious asylum claims, there were fewer agents out patrolling the border.”

During Biden’s presidency, at least two million illegal immigrants crossing the border evaded USBP, Mehlman noted. He observed, “These ‘gotaways’ were likely people who had good reason to believe that they were on a criminal database or terror watch list and would not have been released into the country. As a nation, we should be very concerned about who these people are, where they are, and why they are here.”