Stephen Miller said courts can’t rule on Trump’s immigration actions. Experts say he’s wrong
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Senior Advisor Stephen Miller claims that The Immigration and Nationality Act “stripped Article III courts, that’s the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases.” Based on the opinions of a number of immigration law professors Politifact concludes that Miller’s statement is FALSE. The Supreme Court made this clear again yesterday in a ruling that barred the Trump administration could not remove migrants absent due process.
Miller has said that courts violated the law by intervening in the Trump adminisration’s immigration policies.
As for Temporary Protected Status, the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the Homeland Security secretary the authority to designate which countries’ immigrants are eligible. The general rule is that the courts cannot review the President’s TPS designations. The immigration statute says “there is no judicial review” for the “designation, or termination or extension” of a country under this program.
However, as has happened on several occasions, the courts can review to determine whether the administration has violated the Constitution or the Administrative Procedure Act. “In the case against Noem’s termination of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans, the plaintiffs argue that Noem violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that the decision was racially motivated.”
KJ