Immigration and Citizenship

Tahirih Justice Center v. Gaynor

Challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to dramatically restrict eligibility for asylum through a regulation that was approved by an illegally serving Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

Case Summary

Federal law commits the United States to providing humanitarian protections to eligible people fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries, reflecting the nation’s obligations under numerous international agreements. Among other things, these protections allow individuals who are at risk of suffering persecution to apply for asylum and for “withholding of removal” from the United States.

In December 2020, however, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized a new regulation that drastically curtails the availability of asylum and related relief for people fleeing persecution. The new regulation, which violates federal laws in numerous ways, will have a devastating impact on asylum seekers and the organizations that provide legal services to them.

Along with others, CAC sued DHS and other federal agencies and officials on behalf of two nonprofit organizations, the Tahirih Justice Center and Ayuda, Inc., both of which provide legal services to asylum seekers, survivors of gender-based violence, low-income persons seeking immigration benefits, and others. Our lawsuit alleges that the issuance of the new regulation violated the immigration laws, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Homeland Security Act (HSA), the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), and the Constitution.

As our complaint explains, the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security who approved the regulation on behalf of DHS—Chad Wolf—had no authority to be the Acting Secretary, and he occupied that position in violation of the HSA, the FVRA, and the Appointments Clause. Because Wolf was never a valid Acting Secretary, the FVRA requires that the asylum regulation he approved “shall have no force or effect.” In addition, the regulation must be vacated under APA, which requires that all agency actions be taken “in accordance with law.”

Our lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in January 2021. It seeks a ruling that the regulation is invalid and an injunction preventing the government from implementing it.

Case Timeline

  • January 14, 2021

    CAC and others file complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia

    D.D.C. Compl.

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
April 19, 2021

Biden Clashes With His Allies in Supreme Court Green-Card Case

Bloomberg News
President Joe Biden’s balancing act on the politically fraught issue of immigration moves to the...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By Greg Stohr
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

Sanchez v. Mayorkas

In Sanchez v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Immigration and Nationality Act permits eligible individuals who have received Temporary Protected Status to adjust to lawful-permanent-resident status even though they were not inspected...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab

In Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, the Supreme Court is considering whether a Trump administration policy authorizing the return of certain noncitizens to Mexico while they await adjudication of their asylum applications violates the Immigration...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2021

RELEASE: New Court Challenge Says Trump Anti-Asylum Rule “Unlawful, Unconstitutional, Invalid” 

WASHINGTON – Yesterday, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), together with co-counsel, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brian R. Frazelle
Immigration and Citizenship
November 14, 2020

RELEASE: Victory For DACA Recipients

WASHINGTON -- On news of the ruling in Batalla Vidal v. Wolf, Constitutional Accountability Center...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

New York v. Department of Homeland Security; Make the Road NY v. Cuccinelli

In New York v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering the legality of an effort by the purported Acting Secretary of Homeland Security...