Introduction
This essay examines the intersection of executive power and constitutional conflict in the context of recent federal immigration actions in the United States. It specifically focuses on how congressional gridlock has shifted immigration policymaking toward the executive branch, resulting in increased judicial scrutiny and tensions between federal and state authorities. The analysis centres on three key areas: asylum policy and executive authority, sanctuary jurisdictions and federalism, and the removal or termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). By exploring these dimensions, the essay highlights the broader implications of executive overreach, intergovernmental conflict, and the judiciary’s role in shaping immigration policy. Supported by credible academic sources, this essay aims to provide a balanced analysis of these issues within the framework of American government and political science principles, demonstrating how such shifts in power impact civic issues at local, state, and national levels.
Asylum Policy and Executive Authority
Asylum policy has become a focal point for understanding the expansion of executive authority in immigration matters, particularly in the absence of comprehensive legislative action. Historically, Congress holds the primary authority to establish immigration laws under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, persistent partisan gridlock has impeded the passage of meaningful immigration reform, leaving successive administrations to rely on executive actions to address urgent policy challenges. For instance, during the Trump administration, executive orders and policy memos were frequently used to impose stricter asylum rules, such as the “Remain in Mexico” policy—officially termed the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their U.S. cases were processed (Pierce and Bolter, 2020). This policy, implemented without congressional approval, sparked significant legal challenges, illustrating the judiciary’s growing role in reviewing executive actions.
Furthermore, the Biden administration’s attempts to reverse such policies have similarly relied on executive discretion, underscoring a pattern of policymaking that bypasses legislative consensus. While executive actions can provide rapid responses to humanitarian crises, they also raise concerns about the erosion of checks and balances. As argued by Pierce and Bolter (2020), this trend risks creating a precedent where immigration policy becomes overly dependent on the political priorities of the sitting president, rather than reflecting a stable, legislatively rooted framework. The judiciary, in turn, has frequently intervened, as seen in cases like Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020), which challenged executive overreach in immigration-related decisions. Thus, asylum policy exemplifies how congressional inaction has amplified executive power, often at the cost of constitutional clarity and inter-branch conflict.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Federalism
Another critical area of tension lies in the relationship between sanctuary jurisdictions and federal authority, highlighting the complexities of federalism within U.S. immigration policy. Sanctuary jurisdictions—localities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—have emerged as a response to perceived overreach by federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These policies, often enacted by cities and states with progressive leanings, aim to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation by refusing to honour certain federal detainer requests (Lasch, 2018). However, such actions have provoked significant federal backlash, particularly under administrations seeking stricter enforcement. For example, during the Trump era, the Department of Justice attempted to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, arguing that these jurisdictions undermined national security and the rule of law (Lasch, 2018).
This conflict raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between federal and state governments under the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, yet immigration enforcement is generally considered a federal responsibility. Consequently, federal attempts to penalize sanctuary jurisdictions have led to legal battles, with courts often siding with states and localities on the grounds of anti-commandeering principles, as established in cases like Printz v. United States (1997). Lasch (2018) notes that these disputes reflect broader tensions in federalism, exacerbated by congressional gridlock, as the lack of clear legislative guidance forces states and the executive branch into direct confrontation. Sanctuary policies, therefore, serve as a microcosm of the wider struggle to define the boundaries of federal authority in a polarized political landscape, with significant implications for local communities and undocumented residents.
Termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
The termination or removal of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain nationalities further illustrates the shift toward executive dominance in immigration policy and the resultant constitutional conflicts. TPS is a humanitarian program under the Immigration Act of 1990 that allows nationals of designated countries facing crises—such as natural disasters or armed conflict—to remain in the U.S. temporarily. While the authority to designate or terminate TPS lies with the Secretary of Homeland Security, decisions in recent years have increasingly reflected executive policy preferences rather than statutory criteria. Notably, the Trump administration’s efforts to end TPS for beneficiaries from countries like Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras affected hundreds of thousands of individuals, sparking widespread criticism and legal challenges (Messick and Bergeron, 2019).
These terminations, often justified by claims of improved conditions in the countries of origin, were met with lawsuits alleging procedural violations and discriminatory motives. Courts, including in cases like Ramos v. Nielsen (2018), issued injunctions against TPS terminations, highlighting the judiciary’s role in checking executive discretion. Messick and Bergeron (2019) argue that such decisions underscore the dangers of executive policymaking in the absence of congressional oversight, as TPS terminations disproportionately impact vulnerable communities without a clear legislative mechanism for appeal or adjustment of status. Indeed, the reliance on executive action to alter TPS designations reflects the broader theme of congressional inaction, which leaves significant policy decisions to the discretion of the administration in power, thereby intensifying judicial review and public contention.
The Role of Congressional Gridlock in Shaping Immigration Policy
At the heart of these issues lies the recurring problem of congressional gridlock, which has fundamentally altered the landscape of immigration policymaking in the United States. Immigration reform requires bipartisan cooperation, yet deep partisan divisions—particularly over issues of border security, legalization pathways, and humanitarian protections—have prevented Congress from enacting comprehensive legislation since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. As a result, presidents have increasingly turned to executive actions, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) under Obama or border wall funding declarations under Trump, to fill the policy vacuum (Pierce and Bolter, 2020). While these measures address immediate needs, they lack the permanence and legitimacy of statutory law, often leading to legal challenges and policy reversals with each new administration.
Moreover, congressional gridlock exacerbates federal-state conflicts by leaving unresolved questions about the scope of state authority in immigration matters. Without clear federal guidelines, states and localities adopt divergent approaches, as seen with sanctuary jurisdictions, further fragmenting national policy. The judiciary’s role as an arbiter in these disputes, while necessary, cannot fully compensate for the absence of legislative action. As Pierce and Bolter (2020) suggest, the current reliance on executive and judicial mechanisms risks undermining democratic accountability, as unelected actors—whether agency heads or judges—wield disproportionate influence over immigration outcomes. This dynamic has profound implications for civic issues, as communities grapple with inconsistent policies that affect their social fabric, economic stability, and legal protections.
Conclusion
In conclusion, recent federal immigration actions reveal significant shifts in executive power and constitutional conflict, driven largely by congressional gridlock. Through an analysis of asylum policy, sanctuary jurisdictions, and TPS terminations, this essay has demonstrated how the executive branch has assumed a dominant role in immigration policymaking, often at the expense of legislative authority and federal-state harmony. While executive actions offer flexibility in addressing urgent challenges, they also invite judicial scrutiny and exacerbate intergovernmental tensions, as seen in legal battles over asylum rules, sanctuary policies, and TPS decisions. The broader implication of this trend is a governance structure increasingly reliant on temporary, contested measures rather than stable, democratically enacted laws. For communities across the U.S., whether local or national, these shifts translate into uncertainty and division, underscoring the urgent need for congressional action to restore balance and coherence to immigration policy. As such, understanding these dynamics is essential for students of American government, as they reflect core challenges to constitutional principles and civic stability in a polarized era.
References
- Lasch, C. N. (2018) Sanctuary Cities and the Law: Questions of Federalism and Local Autonomy. American University Law Review, 67(5), 1497-1560.
- Messick, M., & Bergeron, C. (2019) Temporary Protected Status in the United States: A Humanitarian Program in Flux. Migration Policy Institute Report. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/temporary-protected-status-united-states.
- Pierce, S., & Bolter, J. (2020) Dismantling and Reconstructing the U.S. Immigration System: A Catalog of Changes under the Trump Presidency. Migration Policy Institute Report. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/us-immigration-system-changes-trump-presidency.
