Immigration and Citizenship

CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf

In CASA de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland considered a challenge to two new rules issued by the Trump administration that delay or eliminate work authorization for thousands of asylum seekers, leaving those individuals unable to support themselves as they await decision on their asylum claims.

Case Summary

The Constitution requires that high-level federal officers like the Secretary of Homeland Security be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.  Senate confirmation is designed to ensure accountability of agency heads, who enjoy significant authority to implement policy.  To further preserve the Senate’s constitutional prerogative, congress passed the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), which places strict limits on the use of “acting” officers to fill vacant positions.

Despite these safeguards, the Department of Homeland Security has operated without a Senate-confirmed Secretary.  In June 2020 when the Department’s purported Acting Secretary, Chad Wolf, approved two final rules that significantly harm asylum applicants seeking work authorization.  At the time Wolf approved the two policies, neither he nor anyone else was eligible to serve as Acting Secretary under the FVRA.

CASA de Maryland and several other nonprofit organizations that serve asylum seekers challenged the new rules as unlawful and sought a preliminary injunction stopping the rules from going into effect.  CAC filed an amicus brief in support of that challenge.

Our brief first described how Congress enacted the FVRA in response to the executive branch’s increasing noncompliance with the Appointments Clause and with prior legislation that limited the use of acting officials.  Next, we explained that Chad Wolf is violating the FVRA by serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, for two independent reasons.  First, under the FVRA and the statutes governing the Department, Wolf was never eligible to become the Acting Secretary, and he assumed that position unlawfully.  Second, even if Wolf’s initial appointment were valid, the FVRA’s time limits on service for an Acting Secretary expired well before Wolf approved the new asylum rules.  Finally, our brief described the consequences of Wolf’s unlawful tenure.  Because Wolf is not a valid Acting Secretary, the FVRA requires that the asylum rules he approved must have no force or effect.  In addition, his approval of the rules must also be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires that all agency actions be taken “in accordance with law.”

The District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction against the new asylum rules.  The court concluded, as we argued, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that Chad Wolf’s installation as Acting Secretary was invalid.  The court also determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that the new asylum rules violate the APA because DHS “failed to respond to significant concerns raised or to consider an important aspect of the problem” when issuing its new rules.

Case Timeline

  • CAC files amicus brief in the District Court for the District of Maryland

    D. Md. Amicus Br.
  • September 11, 2020

    The District Court for the District of Maryland issues a preliminary injunction

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Al Otro Lado v. Trump

In Al Otro Lado v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is considering whether the Trump Administration can prohibit certain people from seeking asylum at ports of entry.
Immigration and Citizenship
November 20, 2025

Trump’s fight to redefine ‘American citizen’ returns to Supreme Court

Courthouse News Service
After winning round one, President Trump wants the justices to tee up a final showdown...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

RAICES v. Noem

In RAICES v. Noem, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration can prohibit certain people within the country from seeking asylum. 
Immigration and Citizenship
June 30, 2025

CAC Release: At the Fifth Circuit, the Government Argued that Alien Enemies Act Means Whatever the President Says. Its Drafters Couldn’t Have Agreed Less.

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth...
By: Smita Ghosh, Ana Builes
Immigration and Citizenship
June 27, 2025

Trump’s Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Is Unlawful Because Tren de Aragua Is Not a Foreign Nation or Government

Since President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act three months ago to send hundreds...
By: Ana Builes
Immigration and Citizenship
June 27, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court Decision on the Scope of Injunctions Fails to Acknowledge the Importance of the Constitution’s Birthright Citizenship Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, Trump...