ACE

Tag: authority

  • Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    What is Title 42?

    Title 42, established under the Public Health Service Act of 1944, grants the U.S. government authority to expel individuals recently present in a country with a communicable disease. Section 362 of the act allows the Surgeon General to halt the “introduction of persons or property” to prevent the spread of disease. While rarely used in modern history, Title 42 became a key immigration enforcement tool during the first Trump administration.

    The first recorded use of Title 42 occurred in 1929 to restrict entry from China and the Philippines during a meningitis outbreak. Decades later, on March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked the policy to limit the spread of COVID-19 across state and national borders.

    Implementation and Impact

    During the first two years of its enforcement, Title 42 was used around 2.5 million times to deport migrants entering the U.S. It gave border control agents the authority to expel migrants without offering the opportunity for them to seek asylum, although families and children traveling alone were exempt from this provision. Beginning in January 2023, migrants coming from Mexico could request a Title 42 exemption through the CBP One app if they met vulnerability criteria.  

    In April 2022, the CDC announced that Title 42 was no longer necessary and would be terminated in May 2022, citing increased vaccination rates and improved treatments for COVID-19. However, several Republican-led states challenged this decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court. While the Court allowed continued enforcement of Title 42 before it heard arguments, it dismissed the case the following year. Title 42 expired in May 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of Title 42

    Supporters of Title 42, including the Trump administration, argued that the policy was necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers and, by extension, within the United States. In a 2020 briefing, President Trump stated that his actions to secure the northern and southern border under Title 42 would “save countless lives.” The Trump administration’s declaration of a COVID-19 national emergency on March 18th, 2020, framed stricter immigration policy as a matter of public health.

    Some states also supported Title 42 to prevent a surge in migration that could overwhelm their border facilities. Texas, for example, argued that lifting the policy would place an undue burden on the state, leading it to implement Operation Lone Star, which allocated state resources to border security.

    The policy also received occasional bipartisan support, and was willfully enforced by the Biden administration until the CDC attempted to terminate Title 42 in April 2022. In early 2022, at least nine Democrats argued that Title 42 should be extended. President Biden also debated whether or not the policy should end. In January 2023, he expanded the scope of Title 42 to include migrants originating from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela. 

    Arguments Against Title 42

    Critics of Title 42 argue that it violates international norms, particularly Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to seek asylum. While the U.S. did not ratify the declaration, it played a key role in its creation and remains a signatory. Additionally, since 1980, U.S. law has recognized the right to seek asylum, rendering Title 42’s restrictions controversial in the context of global and domestic asylum norms.

    Public health experts also questioned the policy’s effectiveness in controlling COVID-19. There is no statistical evidence linking Title 42 expulsions to a reduction in COVID-19 cases. Instead, critics suggest that overcrowding in detention centers may have worsened public health conditions. One migrant described being held in “crowded conditions” for days without COVID-19 testing before being transported in similarly congested vehicles. Additionally, a senior advisor to the Trump administration pushed for the use of Title 42 before COVID-19, raising concerns about whether the policy was implemented for genuine public health reasons. 

    Opponents also contend that Title 42 subjected migrants to precarious conditions. Doctors Without Borders emphasized that mass expulsions left individuals without access to shelter, food, medical care, or legal representation. A fire in a migrant detention center, which killed 39 people, underscored these risks; surveillance footage showed detainees trapped in locked cells while guards failed to intervene. Critics also argue that the policy’s implementation often resulted in asylum seekers being detained in poor conditions and returned to the dangers they had fled.

    Future Prospects

    While Title 42 was invoked as a measure to protect public health, its effectiveness in achieving those goals remains debated. Proponents argue it was an effective solution that addressed co-occurring public health and immigration crises, while opponents argue it invited human rights violations and had a counterproductive impact on public health. Internal documents collected from the Trump administration in February 2025 suggest that President Trump aims to reinstate Title 42 policies, labeling unauthorized migrants as “public health risks” that “could spread communicable diseases like tuberculosis.” The Trump administration previously shut down the CBP One app, which assisted migrants in requesting Title 42 exemptions. The policy continues to evoke mixed reactions, and if reintroduced, past experiences may provide insights into its potential impact.

  • Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Introduction and History 

    The Alien Enemies Act (AEA), enacted in 1798 as a part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, grants the President the authority to detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile during times of declared war or invasion. While war can only be declared by Congress, some believe a rhetorical reading of “invasion” leaves a legal gray area for the executive branch to invoke the AEA in the absence of a physical invasion or declaration of war. The law gives the executive branch power to manage national security concerns via the detention and deportation of foreign nationals without judicial oversight. 

    The AEA passed during a period of heightened tensions between the United States and France, with the United States facing threats of foreign influence, espionage, and internal dissent. It has been invoked three times throughout U.S. history: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The AEA is most notorious for its role in creating Japanese internment camps after the Pearl Harbor bombing of 1941. 

    The broader Alien and Sedition Acts received criticism for suppressing political opposition, particularly against immigrants from nations deemed hostile. While most of the Alien and Sedition Acts were either repealed or left to expire under President Thomas Roosevelt, the AEA remained in place and was expanded in 1918 to include women. While the AEA itself has been invoked sparingly by U.S. presidents, its broad language has left room for interpretation and debate today. 

    Recent Developments

    During his 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to invoke the AEA as part of Operation Aurora, an initiative aimed at addressing immigration issues and criminal networks. In line with this plan, President Trump released executive orders that categorized immigration as an “invasion” and designated certain drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Some legal scholars believe that by classifying these cartels as state actors, the Trump administration is seeking to create legal justification for future use of the AEA to deport individuals from Mexico and other regions deemed hostile to national security.

    In response to concerns over potential executive abuse of the AEA, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Act entirely. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Alien Enemies Act

    Supporters argue that the AEA is a vital tool for safeguarding national security, particularly during times of war or crisis. By allowing for the swift removal of individuals from hostile nations, the Act is seen as a preventive measure against espionage, sabotage, or other threats. Some proponents also contend that mass migration could provide cover for criminals, terrorists, or spies seeking to infiltrate the United States, making strict enforcement of the AEA a necessity. 

    Proponents also highlight the potential use of the AEA in dismantling transnational criminal organizations operating within American borders. Targeting noncitizens involved in illicit activities, including drug trafficking and organized crime, is seen as a means of enhancing public safety. Some argue that strict enforcement of the Act can serve as a deterrent against illegal immigration and unauthorized criminal activity. 

    From a policy standpoint, strong border control measures are often considered essential to maintaining national sovereignty. Advocates for the AEA argue that it falls within the President’s constitutional duty to protect the United States from foreign threats, and contend that the political question doctrine prohibits courts from intervening if the President decides to invoke it. They also assert that transnational criminal organizations meet criteria for the constitutional definition of “invasion”, justifying an invocation of the AEA in modern times. The AEA’s potential to bypass local sanctuary city policies, which may limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, is another reason some advocate for the Act’s use today. 

    Arguments Against the Alien Enemies Act

    Critics argue that AEA violates several fundamental rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the right to be free from indefinite civil detention. They point to the AEA’s ability to bypass standard immigration court proceedings and deport individuals without hearings, arguing that the absence of judicial review leaves affected individuals with limited legal recourse. Experts note that this lack of judicial oversight could allow for large-scale detentions and deportations, opening the door to wrongful detentions nationwide. They argue that the lack of due process puts noncitizens and lawful immigrants at risk of being wrongfully detained or deported without the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

    Another primary concern surrounding the AEA is the potential for discriminatory enforcement based on nationality. The Act applies not only to citizens of a hostile nation but to “natives” of a hostile nation, which includes those who were born in a hostile nation but have since renounced their citizenship from that state. In this way, the AEA explicitly allows discrimination based on ancestry. Given that past uses of the AEA led to the surveillance, kidnapping, and indefinite detention of residents based on their nationality, critics fear that invoking the AEA today would replicate the human rights abuses of the Japanese internment era and lead to widespread racial profiling. 

    Some legal scholars also criticize the Act’s broad allowance for executive action and vague definitions of security threats such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion”. They warn that these broad terms leave room for an administration to target civilians in times of peace. They highlight the Supreme Court’s 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins decision – which upheld President Truman’s use of the AEA for six years after the end of World War II – as a dangerous precedent that might allow future administrations to use wartime powers to attack civilians during peacetime if the AEA is not repealed. 

    Beyond legal and ethical concerns, critics emphasize that mass deportations under the AEA could have significant economic implications. Many industries, particularly those reliant on immigration labor, could face workforce shortages and disruptions. The potential loss of workers in agriculture, construction, and service industries could negatively affect local and national economies. Some economists warn that a mass deportation strategy could lead to increased costs for consumers, reduced productivity, and job losses for American citizens who labor alongside immigrant workers. 

    The Alien Enemies Act’s Future Prospects

    Applying the AEA in modern contexts is likely to face legal challenges. Courts may be called upon to determine whether broad applications of the act align with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations. Given the potential for legal disputes, any large-scale innovation of the AEA would likely be subject to judicial review. Legal scholars suggest that any attempt to broadly apply the AEA, such as categorizing all foreign-based cartels as state actors, may struggle to hold up in court.

    If the Trump administration or future administrations seek to implement the AEA extensively, congressional efforts to alter the Act’s provisions may also gain traction. The Neighbors Not Enemies Act represents one such effort to repeal the AEA outright. Alternatively, some lawmakers may push for reforms that introduce judicial oversight or limit the scope of the Act under modern legal standards. 

    Numerous civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations have signaled their intent to challenge any broad use of the AEA. These groups may use litigation, public awareness campaigns, and lobbying efforts to limit the Act’s application or push for its repeal in the future. Public perception and media coverage will likely shape the discourse around the Act’s future. 

    Conclusion

    The Alien Enemies Act, rooted in the national security concerns of 1798, continues to be a subject of debate in contemporary American politics. While some view it as a necessary tool for maintaining national security, others argue that it risks civil rights violations, racial profiling, and economic harm. As political, legal, and legislative battles unfold, the future of the Act remains unknown. The resolution of this debate will shape the future trajectory of immigration law, civil liberties, and national security policy in the United States for years to come.

  • Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Background

    The Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) is a bill under consideration in Congress that aims to protect the integrity of the democratic process. The bill was originally passed in the House in 2021. It was received in the Senate in late 2021, where it failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. It was reintroduced to the House in 2023, where it remains.

    PODA’s provisions center around three main goals:

    • Shifting power from the executive to the legislative branch: PODA would limit presidential powers, reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending decisions, and require congressional approval of presidential emergency declarations. PODA would also codify Congress’s subpoena and investigatory power, giving the legislative branch greater oversight of the executive branch.
    • Preventing corruption: PODA would require greater presidential transparency, enact new protections for both inspectors general and whistleblowers, and codify the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses, which prevent government officials from receiving profits from foreign officials or states. It would also reinforce the Hatch Act of 1939, which limits the political activities of federal employees and other government officials involved with federally-funded programs.
    • Strengthening election integrity laws: PODA also prohibits foreign election assistance in the form of donations and would require greater transparency in digital political advertisements.

    Arguments in Favor of the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    One of the main arguments in support of PODA is that gradual institutional decay has undermined congressional authority. PODA’s proponents point to resistance to congressional oversight by former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama as evidence of this phenomenon. They argue that the recent growth of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch can be mitigated through PODA’s provisions, which give Congress clear authority to enforce subpoenas, reassert congressional power over federal spending, and restrict a president’s use of emergency declarations. Proponents believe that this would effectively reform the balance of power between the two branches and restore the democratic process to the federal government.

    PODA’s supporters also emphasize a need for greater defenses against corruption and abuses of power. They point to the Trump administration’s refusal to disclose tax returns, dismissals of inspectors general, and issuance of pardons for corruption charges against close associates as evidence of the need for greater oversight of the executive branch. They believe that reinforcing the Hatch Act would keep federal programs fair and non-partisan, reduce corruption, and prevent political patronage. Supporters also believe that government whistleblowers need greater protections. A poll conducted by Marist in 2020 found that 86% of American voters agree that there should be more legal protections for federal employees who report fraud. Whistleblower protections are also popular across party lines. Supporters of PODA believe that the bill would provide these popular protections by granting whistleblowers increased anonymity and a private right of action if outed by other government officials.

    Finally, proponents of PODA argue that the bill will prevent foreign interference in elections. The federal ban against foreign interference in national elections has not been updated since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns and elections. PODA’s supporters believe that this outdated policy has allowed foreign interests to fund campaigns, pay for digital advertising, and conduct social media campaigns freely, potentially spending almost $1 billion total on U.S. elections in the past decade. If passed, the bill intends to decrease foreign influence by explicitly banning foreign assistance in elections and requiring political groups to report all attempts by foreign actors to influence campaigns or elections.

    Arguments Against the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    The main argument against PODA is that the bill interferes with the separation of power between the three branches of government. Opponents of PODA argue that its provisions diminish the executive branch by requiring congressional oversight of the presidential pardon, a constitutionally-granted presidential power. Critics also believe that PODA would diminish the judicial branch by attaching new definitions to constitutional language that courts have already ruled upon, overriding court decisions and further upsetting the balance of power. Specifically, they point to PODA’s new definition of emoluments, which expands the definition to include payments arising from commercial transactions at fair market value. In light of this, opponents believe that PODA’s passage would upset the American political system of checks and balances by tipping the scales too far in the direction of the legislative branch.

    Opponents of PODA also point to the bill’s protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general as a key reason to oppose the proposal. They believe that the increased protections and anonymity for whistleblowers make it difficult for the federal government to vet claims, shielding poorly-performing employees from scrutiny. They also believe that requiring congressional oversight for firing Inspectors General decreases government efficiency and intrudes on internal operations.

    Critics also believe that PODA is politically-motivated. They argue that the bill specifically targets former President Trump and his administration’s actions. As such, they believe that PODA’s proponents only support it with the intent of politically damaging Trump and that the bill’s provisions are unnecessary.

    Conclusion

    In summary, PODA supporters argue that the bill would restore congressional authority, defend against government corruption and abuses of power, and prevent foreign interference in elections. Critics argue that PODA is a politically-motivated bill that would interfere with the constitutional separation of powers, make it difficult to vet whistleblower claims, and decrease the efficiency of the federal government. 
    After its introduction to the Senate in December 2021, PODA entered committee, where it has remained for the last three years. Even with its recent reintroduction to the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate in its entirety unless the filibuster is abolished.