In Washington, D.C., District Court Judge Randolph Moss has issued a notable decision against the Trump Administration in Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal and Educational Services v. Noem. Judge Moss rejected the use of Trump’s January 20 “invasion” executive proclamation to block undocumented immigrants from pursuing asylum applications and other legal pathways. The court essentially rules that the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution is something of a paper tiger, finding that states are protected from “invasion,” but affording the President no additional powers to carry out that guarantee.
We have previously discussed the Guarantee Clause and efforts of states to claim an invasion to allow them to cross the border during the Biden Administration when millions were allowed to enter the country.
The clause states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” Notably, Judge Moss does not resolve the question of what constitutes an invasion because he finds that it does not matter: the clause is more rhetorical and actual in terms of authority. It does not afford President Trump any additional power to negate or supplant federal laws:
For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that neither the INA [statute] nor the Constitution grants the President or the Agency Defendants authority to replace the comprehensive rules and procedures set forth in the INA and the governing regulations with an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum or withholding of removal and without complying with the regulations governing CAT protection…[T]he INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country, and, as the Department of Justice correctly concluded less than nine months ago, neither § 1182(f) nor § 1185(a) provides the President with the unilateral authority to limit the rights of aliens present in the United States to apply for asylum.
…
Defendants’ reliance on the Constitution’s guarantee that the “United States . . . shall protect each [state] against Invasion,” U.S. Const., art. IV, § 4 (the “Invasion Clause”), fails for the same reasons. Defendants themselves place little or no independent reliance on the Invasion Clause and, instead, merely suggest that the President plays some role in protecting the States “against Invasion….” even assuming that is correct, Defendants do not dispute that Congress plays the primary role in crafting the governing rules and that, under the Youngstown framework, see Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 637–38 (Jackson, J., concurring), the President may not act in derogation of the laws that Congress has enacted. Although relevant precedent is sparse, the Supreme Court has opined that the responsibility for “carry[ing] into effect” the Guarantee Clause “is primarily a legislative power,” Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 701 (1868), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885), and that it “rest[s] with Congress . . . to determine . . . the means proper to be adopted to fulfill th[e] guarantee” against “domestic violence,” Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 43 (1849). There is no reason to believe that the Invasion Clause, which appears in the very same sentence of Article IV as these provisions, allocates responsibility any differently. That conclusion finds further support in Article I of the Constitution, moreover, which grants Congress the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . repel Invasions,” U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 15, leaving little doubt that responsibility under the Invasion Clause is, at the very least, shared between the political branches. Finally, it is far from clear that the Invasion Clause confers any power to act that is not found elsewhere in Articles I and II of the Constitution. Unlike Article IV, Section 4, which speaks in terms of the responsibility of “[t]he United States” to protect the States, Articles I and II speak in terms of the “Power[s]” vested in the Congress and the President to perform their constitutional responsibilities…. If the President lacks authority under the Vesting Clause of Article II to supplant the INA with an alternative set of immigration laws, that power cannot be found in Article IV, Section 4.
This is a matter of first impression for the courts and there are good-faith arguments on both sides. The court is saying that Article IV, Section 4 does not vest any additional powers that the President does not have under Article II. The question, however, is whether that effectively makes the Guarantee Clause superfluous and meaningless in terms of actual authority to repel an invasion.
There is also the separate issue of Judge Moss’s own authority in issuing relief. The ruling runs against the grain after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against national or universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA. The relief here is sweeping. The Court did allow for universal injunctions in national class action cases.
The court narrowly construes the injunction issue under this particular law. It acknowledges that it cannot, under prior precedent, issue class-wide injunctive relief. However, it finds the equivalent in reframing the relief:
“the Court is persuaded that it lacks authority to issue a class-wide injunction requiring the Agency Defendants to comply with § 1231(b)(3), and the Court, accordingly, will not do so. But that does not mean that the Court must deny the principal injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek—that is, an order precluding the Agency Defendants from implementing the Proclamation. Among other things, as noted above, the Proclamation expressly refers to asylum, but it says nothing about withholding of removal, and although the Proclamation purports to suspend “access to provisions of the INA that would permit continued presence in the United States,” Proclamation, §§ 2–3, withholding of removal does not permit aliens to remain in the United States—it merely specifies to where an alien may be removed.”
This will now proceed on appeal and ultimately could reach the Supreme Court. There is another invasion case pending in the Fifth Circuit that concerns the President’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Trump and his Congress are doing a magnificent job diverting voters’ attention away from balancing the federal budget and reducing longterm debt.
The diversion campaign coincidentally started when Musk mentioned Trump was in the Epstein Files. It’s been full diversion since then.
When you support the current RINO dictatorship model. You also support a future dictatorship under Democrats.
The Declaration of Independence was meant to oppose leaders like Trump – happy 4th of July!
Nothing of what you wrote makes sense. It’s like you just threw a bunch of trite phrases together.
OH MY…….. THERE IS A NEW TDS ‘ANONYMOUS’ DEGRADING THIS FORUM…. HOW DID U EVER ESCAPE NURSERY SCHOOL? THANK GOD THE 4TH OF JULY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE KIND OF RAGE YOU EMBODY….
Another Soviet Democrat Marxist Useless Idiot, attempting to transfer their police state fascist Stalinism onto Republicans…
Never seen THAT before!
Stopping the Federal Judicial Coup in progress will prove as difficult as hitting a Fly in mid air!!!! The Judicial Robe cult members are way out in space………
My cat can do that
The court is saying that Article IV, Section 4 does not vest any additional powers that the President does not have under Article II. The question, however, is whether that effectively makes the Guarantee Clause superfluous and meaningless in terms of actual authority to repel an invasion.
It is a fundamental rule of interpreting laws – including the Constitution, the supreme law of the land – that the drafters did not intend any portion of it to be “surplusage” – i.e., superfluous and without any additional effect.
When this Judge refers to the constitutional directive, “The United States shall guarantee to the States a Republican form of government …”, who does he think the “United States of America” is, and by what authority and power would that guarantee be enforced?
The only power the United States has, is via the Executive and the Commander in Chief. So, while this very superficially thinking Judge has determined that the EXECUTIVE has no authority to enforce this guarantee, I believe that THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF most certainly does!
Sadly, the “defendants” have presented a very weak case, against a very ‘wishy-washy’ judge. Homeland Security need a new legal team to present a stronger defence, and kick this two dimensional judge to the curb when they get to the Appeals court.
Correct! And it’s important to note that nothing the Congress does is binding on the President, excepting his removal due to impeachment and Senate trial and conviction. Also Congress’ overriding of a presidential veto is binding on him. But nothing else.
Many have been unfortunately mesmerized by Art.I, Sec. 8’s repetitive catalogue stating that “Congress shall have power to…” etc. Yet not a whit of it can be accomplished without the President’s concurrence and his order. For instance, when Art. I states that ” Congress shall have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the seas…,” it certainly is not the Congress with its swords and muskets that will board ships and do the ‘punishing.’ Yet Congress can not order the President to arrest and punish anyone if the President is not inclined to do so according to his presidential prerogatives. Or to go to war with France merely because Congress declares war.
Nothing is done in this Nation except by presidential order if one can simply accept the fact that the Judiciary and Congress do their valuable work by making verbal proclamations only, i.e,. merely words on a page, that are, of course, quite important. However, effective and often irrevocable action to e.g. incarcerate, to put to death, to confiscate property, to collect taxes, to issue pardons and reprieves, to order troops and materiel into war, etc., is only carried out by the President, guided by HIS triple mandate to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Hence, if the President determines that a foreign presence in the United States mortally endangers the Nation, he must not wait for Congress’s permission. He has his own permission in the Constitution to preserve, protect and defend our founding document.
What an absurdity it is to presume that a judge’s opinion about national security would outweigh that of the Nation’s Commander-in-Chief.
Obviously, judicial review is the right of citizens, but judges that fail to understand the Constitution’s form and structure often make a mockery of judicial review.
Prof. Turley is perhaps too generous to the federal judge in writing that there are good faith arguments on both sides. However, he did acknowledge the problem–obvious to me–that the judge wrote the clauses out of the Constitution by making them superfluous. I see that as reversible error. Plus, the judge can’t just avoid the recent decision of the Supreme Court by defining his injunction a little differently.
I think he’s referring to whether we have been invaded under the legal definition of an invasion. A good faith argument can be made that the Const intended for invasion to apply to an organized crossing of a border by a foreign state. I think you can argue that mass migration is not an “invasion”.
As a practical matter it is an invasion. That portion of the Constitution was exactly meant for this. The US doesn’t recognize mass migration of mass proportions from an unlawful downed border as anything other than an invasion.
BBB Passed!
Trump you better get on your knees .ask God about your big deal.
OT
From the WAYBACK MACHINE for you AND-SUBJECT-TO-THE-JURISDICTION-THEREOF deniers:
“THIS WILL NOT INCLUDE FOREIGNERS AND ALIENS”
“IF THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO COMPEL A CHILD’S PARENTS TO JURY DUTY, THE THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE THE TOTAL, COMPLETE JURISDICTION”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1866 – SENATOR JACOB M. HOWARD (MI) – AUTHOR OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
– P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, 2005
https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Another day another Judge, this type of governance is unacceptable. Because of the nature of how Judges become Judges they are political appointments that may reign over many political administrations each with differing goals. As such: one would expect a judge to hold their beliefs and interpret that law towards those beliefs right or wrong. Kind of like having no knowledge of the human anatomy but yet capable of ruling on the outlandish notion that man can be woman. This examples the growth on the tree Justice Moss, if his ruling is upheld then the border is open to any and all takers regardless of the applicant’s actual state of affairs, they will just be put in line with the rest to await their individual judicial ruling of asylum. In other words, be given individual rights as actual citizens while waiting; (Horse Crap, I say HORSE CRAP)!
For the sake of understanding this I postulated that the United States has 20 million foreigners without legal status needing determination. Then asked how many judges it would take to depose 20 million cases in a 300-day calendar year, using 2,000 judges each would have to hear +/- 33 cases a day.
It does seem all these renegade judges are trying to pry open a new PANDORR’S BOX thinking Utopia is inside!
George W
In a stunning case of unintended consequences, the six conservative Supreme Court justices inadvertently ruled that their jobs no longer exist, legal experts revealed on Monday.
By virtually eliminating the role of the nation’s judicial branch last Friday, the Republican justices unwittingly downsized themselves, Constitutional scholars said.
“I’m sure they’re having second thoughts now that they’re unemployed, but it’s too late for them to reverse their ruling,” said Professor Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota Law School. “The Constitution explicitly says, ‘No backsies.’”
On Monday morning, a shell-shocked Brett Kavanaugh was seen clearing out his office, lugging an unwieldy beer keg down the Supreme Court’s fabled front steps.
Meanwhile, the sudden demise of the Court has alarmed ex-justices Thomas and Alito, who reportedly asked, “Will this affect our yacht cruises?”
Yawn. Where’d you copy and paste this pathetic missive from?
Reads like an Onion article
-Rabble
On Topic
“The court essentially rules that the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution is something of a paper tiger, finding that states are protected from “invasion,” but affording the President no additional powers to carry out that guarantee.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
States are protected from “invasion.”
The “additional powers to carry out that guarantee” afforded the President are those of the executive branch and the Commander-in-Chief, literally, absolutely, and exclusively.
No legislation or court decision may usurp or exercise executive power or the power of the commander-in-chief.
The Constitution provides the judicial branch merely the judicial power, the power to judge; the Constitution does not provide the judicial branch the power to legislate, to amend the Constitution, or to amend the Constitution through “interpretation.”
The duty of a court is simply to ensure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law.
The judicial branch has the power to exercise “judicial power” or to accurately “apply the relevant laws.”
The judicial branch is not provided any power to “interpret” by the Constitution.
NO COURT HAS ANY POWER TO “INTERPRET” OR CHANGE THE LAW TO ALIGN WITH ITS DESIDERATA
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1- The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
2 – Executive power is exclusively “vested in a President of the United States of America” and not in the judicial branch or the legislative branch.
3 – The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;….
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
Interpreting the law means: Understanding and applying the relevant laws and legal precedents to the specific case.
Conservative podcast host Joe Rogan slammed President Donald Trump’s deportation policy, calling it “insane.”
“It’s insane. We were told there would be no… well, there’s two things that are insane,” Rogan said. “One is the targeting of migrant workers, not cartel members, not gang members, not drug dealers, just construction workers showing up in construction sites and raiding them.”
“And gardeners! Like, really?” he exclaimed.
Conservative podcast host Joe Rogan slammed President Donald Trump’s deportation policy, calling it “insane.”
That would be “conservative” Joe Rogan who was one of the Bernie Bro’s – rooting for Bernie The Commie Sanders on his last attempt to run for the presidency?
If there’s anything valuable in the lunacy of that cut ‘n pasted piece of Democrat lunacy, it’s the message that you don’t anoint somebody as one of your leaders because they say something you like once in a while. And not just Rogan.
Rogan should try to illegally cross the border of China. Rogan does not write the law. Rogan is attempting to void existing law. It is illegal to illegally cross the border. Committing an illegal act makes the perpetrator a criminal. What the eminently Einsteinian Rogan is doing is arguing for temporary workers with no possibility of becoming citizens and no possibility of voting. I LIKE it!
Dennis posted to his dear, close friend ‘Jonathan’: Jonathan: DJT continues to lose in the courts. No big surprise. He has lost 93% of his cases. Numbers don’t lie.
From my Statistical Analysis 423 university course: Figures don’t lie – but liars figger – enter Dennis!
Think for a moment what Dennis would be posting if the president hadn’t swept all of last week’s SCOTUS decisions… but instead have lost at least one of the three, never mind lost all three!
Dennis hopes we ignore how all those SCOTUS decisions are kicking his “lost 93% of his cases” (primarily filed in five carefully selected Democrat district judgeships within the USA) to the curb, as SCOTUS keeps kicking Dennis’s carefully chosen police state fascist Judicial Monarchs to the curb.
How many weeks ago was Dennis posted here wailing “No Kings!”, as he gloated that Democrat Judicial Kings like Boasberg, Breyer, etc were declaring that Trump and his presidency were their subjects? Four weeks? Less than that?
Same Dennis who kept assuring us two years ago at least one of his Democrat Judicial Kings would have Trump behind prison bars, long before Democrat Voting Season opened for 2024?
Dennis is the lowest grade Cheap Fake Marxist American the Soviet Democrats can spare for Professor Turley’s blog. Alternately, he’s just hoping his posts get him a few moments of affection from his latest Grindr date.
George reliably posted: Turley’s argument is fallacious. He’s ignoring the true issue.
George, as always, ignores the true issue of the SOTUS decision so he can claim “Turley is a MAGA nut” – but he, George, isn’t a Soviet Democrat Useful Idiot demanding the rule of Democrat Judicial Kings.
George, as always, is behind the steering wheel of the Three Democrat Stooges clown car.
Plus george is losing a good friend.
Rachel Maddow Gets BRUTAL NEWS From MSNBC Executives!!!
More comments about George and Dennis than the article.
These judges who are so easily pursued by left-wing lawyer arguments —- should be purged from the judicial system by (as the Democrats put it) ANY MEANS possible. As Obama said in 2009, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, and in Nov. 2024, the GOP / Donald T. won the White House, NOT K. Harris, the Democrat candidate.
Isn’t there a proper sequence of actions to address the issues raised by the illegal aliens? It seems that the judge wants all issues addressed at the same time. So how about taking things in order of events: 1st the illegal border crossing and then the asylum claim. To address the illegal border crossing, the illegal alien should be sent back over the border to Mexico (or Canada). With that issue addressed, the asylum claim can be investigated.
That’s so rational of you, Arnold. Yes, illegal entry and no need for heightened scrutiny.
But if we deport the illegals, who will wipe the rear ends of our Democratic officials?
Nurses? Special breed.
Turley’s argument is fallacious. He’s ignoring the true issue. The issue is clearly spelled out in the first sentence of the opinion.
“On January 20, 2025, the President issued a proclamation declaring that “the current
situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion” because “the sheer number of aliens
entering the United States has overwhelmed the system” and is “prevent[ing] the Federal
Government from obtaining operational control of the border.”
Trump is redefining the word “invasion” to justify his authority. The problem is under the constitution and the statutes using the word “invasion” means military action from a foreign government. Armed intrusion into the country. Its Trump and more specifically Stephen Miller who is playing semantics to characterize immigrants crossing the border as an invasion. The majority of immigrants came through legally and some came seeking asylum. That isn’t an invasion.
Turley is avoiding the real issue by creating a narrative that steers clear from scrutinizing Trump’s abuse of the word “invasion” to use statutes and law to trample on the rights of immigrants such as due process.
The court correctly points out that the INA authorizes the president to restrict entry. That does not mean it allows him to restrict asylum. He has no authority to restrict immigrants from entering for asylum. Congress needs to change the law in order for Trump to have that authority. He’s claiming the ability to restrict entry also means the ability to restrict asylum. That’s why Turley is saying “there are good faith arguments on both sides.” Whenever he says that we know Turley is tacitly acknowledging Trump or his administration is not being sincere with their arguments. He doesn’t want to upset his readers and MAGA nutties.
Prof Turley doesn’t read the comments on his blog. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Everything else that you think is important is rendered irrelevant by that simple fact. Why do you waste your time posting here?
Poor george
CNBC
10-year Treasury yield leaps after June jobs figures are much better than forecast
Winning baby
CNBC strikes again
Dow rises 350 points, S&P 500 hits fresh record after a better-than-expected June jobs report: Live updates
Delusional George at it again.
More bad news for george
BREAKING: Federal grand jury indicts LA man who went viral for dropping off truck-load of face shields on Live TV for protestors to use in demonstrations against law enforcement amid LA riots/protests
Legally??? 15 million came across, thousands per week. Legally? Get back to MSLSD. They’re down to only 20 viewers without you watching right now.
“Turley’s argument is fallacious.”
Fascinating, because he didn’t make an argument — let alone a fallacious one.
His post is a *syllabus* of the case, i.e., expository.