Legal Showdown Over Executive Power
The Trump administration defended its decision in court, with Justice Department attorneys arguing that the president has broad constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Citing a decades-old statute, government lawyers contended that Trump acted within his rights to suspend refugee entry when deemed necessary for national security or resource allocation.
“The relevant law plainly states that the president may suspend the entry of any class of individuals if their admission is found to be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” the DOJ said in its briefing. The administration further pointed to historical precedent, noting that presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have invoked similar powers to regulate refugee admissions.
However, plaintiffs countered that Trump’s directive amounted to an unprecedented dismantling of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). They accused the administration of attempting to rewrite federal law through executive fiat, bypassing Congress and established legal protections for asylum seekers.
“These actions echo President Trump’s previous attempts to ban refugees and dismantle the USRAP infrastructure,” the lawsuit stated, referencing similar policies blocked by courts during Trump’s first term.
