Key Updates
Summary
This Order directs the construction of temporary and permanent physical barriers at the southern border of the United States and all appropriate action to deploy permanent sufficient personnel along the southern border to ensure operational control. The Order also directs that action be taken to supplement available personnel to secure the southern border and enforce immigration laws. This Order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new policy guidance on detention of undocumented immigrants and to reinstitute the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico).
This Order also instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to cease using the CBP One application and terminate all categorical parole programs, including Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. The Order instructs that fingerprints be taken from all detained immigrants, and that familial relationships be verified for all immigrants encountered or apprehended. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are directed to prioritize prosecution of offenses that relate to the borders of the United States, including human smuggling, human trafficking, child trafficking and sex trafficking.
The Order also directs the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security, to facilitate additional international cooperation and “safe third country” agreements and would allow removal of asylum seekers to those countries.
Legal Challenges
| Date Complaint Filed |
Original Complaint filed June 12, 2024 Motion for TRO filed January 23, 2025 |
| Venue |
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Summary |
Trump’s executive order instructs the DHS Secretary to cease using the CBP One application, a mobile scheduling application implemented by the Biden Administration to manage migrants and asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Plaintiffs, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES, originally filed a lawsuit claiming that the Biden Administration violated the INA and the APA when it implemented a Rule excluding migrants who arrived at the border between ports of entry from applying for asylum, with limited exceptions. One exception existed for migrants arriving at a port of entry with a CBP One appointment. Las Americas and RAICES filed a Motion for TRO following the discontinuation of the CBP One application. Plaintiffs in the Motion for TRO against DHS are a migrant mother and her children whose existing appointments scheduled through the CBP One application were canceled on January 20, 2025, the day the executive order took effect. The court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO on February 6, 2025, noting that the Plaintiffs did not challenge EO 14165 in the operative complaint or in their motion for summary judgment and that the issue “falls outside the scope of this litigation.” |
|
Date Complaint Filed |
Original Complaint filed June 12, 2024 Motion for TRO filed January 23, 2025 |
|
Venue |
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
|
Short Summary |
Trump’s executive order instructs the DHS Secretary to cease using the CBP One application, a mobile scheduling application implemented by the Biden Administration to manage migrants and asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Plaintiffs, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES, originally filed a lawsuit claiming that the Biden Administration violated the INA and the APA when it implemented a Rule excluding migrants who arrived at the border between ports of entry from applying for asylum, with limited exceptions. One exception existed for migrants arriving at a port of entry with a CBP One appointment.
Las Americas and RAICES filed a Motion for TRO following the discontinuation of the CBP One application. Plaintiffs in the Motion for TRO against DHS are a migrant mother and her children whose existing appointments scheduled through the CBP One application were canceled on January 20, 2025, the day the executive order took effect.
The court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO on February 6, 2025, noting that the Plaintiffs did not challenge EO 14165 in the operative complaint or in their motion for summary judgment and that the issue “falls outside the scope of this litigation.” |
|
Related Cases |
· Doe et al v. Noem et al (February 28, 2025) (D.Mass) (Case No. 1:2025cv10495) · Centro De Trabajadores Unidos et al V. Bessent et al (March 7, 2025) (D.D.C.) (Case No. 1:2025cv00677) · Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights et al v. Noem et al (March 24, 2025) (D.D.C.) (Case No. 1:2025cv00872) |
