Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Markwayne Mullin

── Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Markwayne Mullin ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 3, 2025 Decided April 24, 2026 No. 25-5243 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLEES v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL., APPELLANTS Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:25-cv-00306) Drew C. Ensign, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin Hayes, Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, and David Kim and Katherine J. Shinners, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration and Litigation, General Litigation and Appeals Section.  2 Christopher J. Hajec and Matt A. Crapo were on the brief for amicus curiae Federation for American Immigration Reform in support of appellants. Patrick M. McSweeney, William J. Olson, and Jeremiah L. Morgan were on the brief for amicus curiae America’s Future in support of appellants. Lee Gelernt argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Keren Zwick, Melissa Crow, Omar C. Jadwat, Morgan Russell, Cody Wofsy, Richard Caldarone, Arthur B. Spitzer, and Scott Michelman. Lindsay Harrison entered an appearance. Thomas A. Berry was on the brief for amicus curiae the Cato Institute in support of appellees. Elizabeth B. Wydra and Brianne J. Gorod were on the brief for amicus curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in support of appellees. Ian M. Kysel, Courtney Bell, Student Counsel, and Michael Garcia Bochenek were on the brief for amici curiae the Global Strategic Litigation Council, et al. in support of appellees. Before: PILLARD, WALKER and CHILDS, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge CHILDS. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge WALKER.  3 CHILDS, Circuit Judge: More than a century of precedent assures that “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete” than it is over the admission of foreign individuals. Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899, 903 (2024) (quoting Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909)); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983) (“The plenary authority of Congress over aliens under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 is not open to question.”). Exercising this “broad power over naturalization and immigration,” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 521 (2003), Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. The INA created a comprehensive and detailed scheme addressing all aspects of immigration. It articulates why and how foreign individuals may be admitted to our country and why and how they may be removed. In addition, federal law provides various forms of relief to foreign individuals who face persecution or torture if deported. Those protections include, as pertinent here, asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. On Inauguration Day 2025, President Trump issued Proclamation 10888 (Proclamation). The Proclamation declares that “the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion” because “[t]he sheer number” of foreign individuals “entering the United States has overwhelmed the system” and is “prevent[ing] the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.” Proclamation No. 10888, Guar