Related videos:
The ambitious immigration agenda of President Donald Trump faces multiple judicial challenges in United States courts.
From restrictions on birthright citizenship to expedited deportations, the president's policies have sparked a wave of lawsuits, divided rulings, and precautionary measures that leave millions of people in suspense.
We present an overview of the main legal challenges faced by the Trump administration regarding immigration.
Use of the Foreign Enemies Act
The Trump administration attempted to enforce the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, historically used only during declared wars, to expel individuals allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, primarily Venezuelan citizens.
The authorities deported them to a prison in El Salvador, claiming they were an "invading force" and that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction to release them.
However, a federal appeals court of the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans blocked that law application last week, noting that it was not intended for this type of cases.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling as a check on the executive branch's discretionary power in deportation matters.
The White House, for its part, asserts that the president has the authority to act in defense of national security and indicated that it will take the case to higher authorities.
Executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship
In an unprecedented move, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at redefining birthright citizenship, excluding children of immigrants who are in the country illegally or hold temporary status.
Several states, including Washington, Illinois, and Arizona, challenged the order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco declared the order unconstitutional and upheld its nationwide injunction.
Deportations to third countries without personal ties
The government has carried out deportations to countries like El Salvador and South Sudan, even when migrants have no family or historical ties to those destinations. The Trump administration claims that many of them have criminal backgrounds or come from countries that refuse to accept them.
However, advocacy groups have filed lawsuits for violations of due process and for exposing deportees to serious risks in countries with records of human rights abuses.
A federal judge ordered a temporary halt to these expulsions, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision, allowing them to resume.
In July, five men deported to Eswatini, in Africa, remained in detention without charges or access to lawyers, according to their advocates.
Massive raids in California and accusations of racial profiling
Immigration raids in Southern California, particularly in businesses, bus stops, and stores, resulted in the detention of many Latino individuals, including U.S. citizens. These operations led to a lawsuit for racial profiling.
A federal judge ordered to halt these actions in seven counties, deeming them unconstitutional. The Trump administration responded with an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that these restrictions limit the operational capacity of federal agents.
The TPS and humanitarian paroles
The Trump administration has sought to dismantle the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and the humanitarian parole program that protects over 1.5 million migrants from countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua.
Although the Supreme Court initially allowed for the revocation of TPS, a federal court in San Francisco restored it on September 5th.
The judge Edward Chen in the new ruling states that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, acted without legal grounds when canceling the extensions granted by the previous administration.
Meanwhile, another court in Boston is assessing whether to suspend the cancellation of humanitarian parole for about 430,000 migrants from the region.
Expansion of expedited deportation
On August 1, it was reported that a federal judge in Washington D.C. blocked several directives from the Trump administration that authorized the expedited deportation of immigrants benefiting from humanitarian parole, a measure that affected thousands of Cubans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans.
The government also expanded the use of "immediate expulsion", allowing the deportation of migrants who have been in the country for less than two years without going through a judge. Previously, this measure only applied to individuals detained near the border and who had been in the U.S. for less than two weeks.
This expansion was temporarily blocked by Federal Judge Jia Cobb, who argued that it could violate the right to due process. The judge also halted the expedited deportation of individuals with humanitarian permits.
Donald Trump's immigration policies are progressing amid lawsuits, legal challenges, and divided court rulings. While some measures have been upheld by the judicial system, others have been halted or declared unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, thousands of migrant families are facing an uncertain future, waiting for court rulings that could change the course of their lives at any moment.
Frequently asked questions about Donald Trump's immigration policies
What does Trump's attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship in the U.S. imply?
Trump's attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship seeks to deny the right to U.S. citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or those with temporary immigration status born in the U.S. This measure, deemed unconstitutional by several courts, has been blocked in various judicial instances, preventing its implementation at the national level. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees this right, and Trump's order faces strong legal and political opposition.
What is the Foreign Enemies Act and how has the Trump administration used it?
The Alien Enemies Act is a regulation from 1798 that allows for the detention and deportation of citizens from enemy countries during armed conflicts. The Trump administration attempted to use it to deport Venezuelan immigrants, claiming their association with gangs. However, multiple courts have blocked its application, stating that it does not apply in peacetime contexts and violates due process, leading to judicial pushback against this policy.
What are the criticisms and legal challenges to mass raids and racial profiling in California?
Massive raids in California have been criticized for racial profiling, primarily affecting the Latino community. These operations, conducted in businesses and public spaces, have led to the detention of immigrants and American citizens. A federal judge ordered a halt to these actions in several counties, arguing that they violate the Constitution. The Trump administration appealed this decision, defending the operational needs of its agents, which has intensified the legal battle surrounding these practices.
What are the consequences of the end of TPS and other humanitarian programs under the Trump administration?
The end of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other humanitarian programs proposed by Trump would affect over 1.5 million migrants from countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Although the Supreme Court initially allowed its revocation, federal courts have restored TPS for some groups, arguing a lack of legal basis in the administration's decisions. This situation creates uncertainty for thousands of migrants who depend on these protections for their legal stay in the U.S.
Filed under: