Immigration and Citizenship

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

WASHINGTON – Yesterdaythe Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC), together with co-counsel, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging a new Rule by the Trump Administration that would maksweeping and detrimental changes to U.S. asylum lawThe plaintiffs in the case are two nonprofits that provide legal services to immigrants and asylum seekers—the Tahirih Justice Center and Ayuda, Inc. The complaint calls the Rule “unlawful, unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and invalid in its entirety.”  

Read the complaint here. 

“I couldn’t be more proud of CAC as we help represent Tahirih and Ayuda in their fight against this unlawful and destructive anti-asylum Rule,” said Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth WydraPeople fleeing persecution, torture, gender-based violence, and other dangers deserve a fair process for seeking asylum in America, and this new Rule, if allowed to stand, would damage that process beyond recognition.” 

CAC Appellate Counsel Brian Frazelle continued: “In its headlong rush to be as cruel as possible toward people lawfully seeking asylum in our country, the Trump Administration violated a litany of federal laws by issuing this Rule, including the laws that govern who should lead the Department of Homeland Security when there is no Senate-confirmed SecretaryBecause Chad Wolf was illegally performing the role of Acting Secretary when he approved this Rule, the court should strike it down. Indeed, Wolf’s tenure as purported Acting Secretary is just one of countless examples of the Trump Administration unlawfully using “acting officials to avoid the constitutional requirement of Senate confirmation. 

Background:  

To prevent abuses of executive power, the Constitution’s Framers adopted the Appointments Clause, which requires top federal officers to be confirmed by the Senate after presidential nomination. Although federal laws permit acting officials to carry out the duties of vacant offices under certain conditionsthose laws impose rigid constraints on who can serve (and for how long) in an acting capacity, in order to prevent circumvention of the Appointments Clause. And under those laws, Chad Wolf was never authorized to be Acting Secretary of Homeland SecurityHe therefore had no power to approve the new anti-asylum Rule. 

 

Resources 

Complaint filed in Tahirih Justice Center and Ayuda, Inc. vGaynor, et al.https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/tahirih-v-gaynor/  

“At Least 15 Trump Officials Do Not Hold Their Positions Lawfully,” Becca Damante, Just Security, September 17, 2020: https://www.justsecurity.org/72456/at-least-15-trump-officials-do-not-hold-their-positions-lawfully/  

“How the Trump Administration is Evading Senate Advice and Consent,” Brianne Gorod and Becca Damante, CAC Blog, April 10, 2020: https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/how-the-trump-administration-is-evading-senate-advice-and-consent/  

## 

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org 

### 

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

Noem v. Al Otro Lado

In Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the Supreme Court is considering whether the government can ignore certain legal protections for people seeking asylum at ports of entry.
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Flores v. Bondi

In Flores v. Bondi, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can terminate a settlement that protects immigrant children in detention centers.
Immigration and Citizenship
January 26, 2026

CAC Release: Congress Should Not Leave ICE Unchecked

In response to recent events in Minneapolis, CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes issued the following...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft

In Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, the Sixth Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration policy that requires imprisoning all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Sanchez Alvarez v. Raycraft

In Sanchez Alvarez v. Raycraft, the Sixth Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration policy that requires imprisoning all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft

In Pizarro Reyes v. Raycraft, the Sixth Circuit is considering the legality of a Trump Administration policy that requires imprisoning all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.