“There is a difference between constitutional government and judicial dictatorship. And I think it’s time we remembered that our Constitution was not put together in order to establish the sovereignty of the judges, it was framed in order to guarantee the sovereignty of the people.”

–Alan Keyes[1]

In the United States, the President’s authority to control U.S. borders and protect national security trumps judicial overreach in matters of citizenship and immigration. Despite the widespread opposition to deportations and executive action on immigration, ultimately grounded in the Constitution, enforcement of immigration policies is essential to both a nation’s survival and to the preservation of the common good.

To understand the balance of power, it is necessary to understand the separation of powers established by the Constitution.[2] Under Articles I, II, and III, the authority to make the laws is given to Congress, the authority to execute the laws is vested in the President, and the authority to interpret the laws is “vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”[3]

Since the U.S. Constitution divides the government into three branches, each branch must do its own job and not infringe on the duties of the other branches of government. This separation of powers is critical to “control the abuses of government.”[4] More recently, judicial overreach has become very prevalent in the immigration law sector.[5] Judges, in the lower federal courts, are explicitly using their power to stop lawful executive orders by the President and to block the enforcement of immigration law.[6] As stated by the Constitution, these lower courts are inferior courts.[7] Inferior courts exist only because Congress created them through the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave them narrow jurisdiction and preserved the constitutionally defined original jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court.[8] Judges are meant to decide cases, not infringe upon the President’s authority to enforce immigration laws.[9]

One recent example of judicial overreach was in the case of Trump v. CASA Inc. where several district courts issued nationwide injunctions against Executive Order 14160, regarding birthright citizenship.[10] The Supreme Court held that such universal relief likely exceeds the equitable powers historically granted to federal courts, which are generally limited to resolving disputes between the parties before them.[11] Congress did not grant these lower courts such power to issue universal injunctions.[12] Thus, these inferior courts were acting as de facto policymakers, going beyond their constitutional role by effectively halting a presidential order nationwide, and simultaneously usurping an authority constitutionally granted to the legislature, not the judiciary.[13]

Altogether, U.S. immigration law requires that noncitizens enter and remain in the country only through lawful procedures and with proper documentation; those who do not comply are subject to removal.[14] Due to the influx of illegal immigrants in recent years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has acted in accordance with the law to carry out deportations.[15] According to an August 2025 Pew Research report, there were approximately 14 million illegal immigrants in the United States as of July 2023, representing a record high.[16] In direct opposition to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) enacted by Congress, some state and local officials have refused to cooperate with ICE, directly denying the President’s constitutional authority to enforce federal law.[17] For example, New York Governor Kathy Hochul reinstated a state executive order to shield dangerous criminal illegal aliens from accountability.[18] Governor Hochul also supported New York’s Green Light Law, which allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses and restricts federal access to DMV data without a warrant.[19]

These failures to uphold federal immigration law illustrate a deeper problem: a disregard for the very purpose of law itself. Fundamentally, the law is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”[20] Accordingly, immigration law exists to protect the nation from illegal entry and invasion, just as a person does not open his home to strangers without limits. Immigration laws logically promote security and order directed toward the common good. If borders are left open and laws against unlawful entry are ignored, the very concept of the law itself begins to erode. Those who cross illegally demonstrate disregard for the country’s legal framework from the outset, undermining respect for the rule of law. Allowing such conditions unchecked would completely undermine the requirement that every new citizen swear an allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.[21] Additionally, a society that fails to enforce its own laws invites disorder and weakens the protections that citizens rely on for security and the common good.[22]

In Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Fr. Dominic Prümmer, O.P. states: “The right of a sovereign state to regulate the entry and settlement of foreigners is derived from its obligation to promote the common good of its people. It would be contrary to justice and prudence to allow unrestricted immigration when such would lead to disorder or harm to the established community.”[23] Immigration enforcement, therefore, is not only constitutional but morally required.[24] Judicial interference undermines the common good by preventing lawful authority from keeping the country safe and secure. It undermines the executive’s constitutional authority to execute the laws of the U.S., and it undermines Congress’ policymaking responsibilities.[25] Catholic social teaching affirms both the human dignity of migrants and the duty of governments to preserve order.[26] While lawful asylum must be available, ignoring immigration laws invites disorder and undermines justice. Without law, society cannot function, and without order, the common good cannot be achieved.

While Congress may establish inferior courts,[27] those courts were never meant to wield unchecked power to obstruct the executive’s duty. Judicial intervention that halts lawful enforcement of immigration statutes and presidential orders undermines both the rule of law and the sovereignty of the people. Immigration enforcement is not arbitrary; it is a constitutional necessity, rooted in the Constitution’s goal to preserve the common good. To secure the nation, enforce the rule of law, and uphold justice, it is the duty of the executive branch, the legislative branch, and of the citizens to prevent judges from violating their constitutional oaths to support and defend the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution.[28]

[1] Alan Keyes, Speech at the 31st Annual Conservative Political Action Conference (Jan. 24, 2004) (transcript available in the Alan Keyes archives).

[2] U.S. Const. art. I–III.

[3] Id.

[4] U.S. Const. art. I–III; The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).

[5] See generally Trump v. CASA Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025).

[6] Id.

[7] U.S. Const. art. III, § I.

[8] Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73.

[9] CASA Inc., 606 U.S. at 860 (holding that universal injunctions “exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act.”).

[10] Trump v. CASA Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025); Exec. Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. (2025).

[11] CASA Inc., 606 U.S. at 837 (“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation… Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law.” CASA Inc., 606 U.S. at 858.).

[12] CASA Inc., 606 U.S. at 841.

[13] Id. at 860 (“But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”); see also Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. 670, 671–72 (2025) (holding that the district court exceeded its authority by issuing class wide injunctive relief against executive removals where Congress required challenges to proceed by habeas corpus and in the district of confinement).

[14] 8 U.S.C. §1325–1326 (2022).

[15] History of ICE, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Sep. 11, 2025),  https://www.ice.gov/history.

[16]  Jeffrey S. Passel and Jens Manuel Krogstad, U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population Reached a Record 14 Million in 2023, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Aug. 21, 2025), https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/08/21/u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population-reached-a-record-14-million-in-2023/; see also Worldwide Threats to the Homeland Before the H. Comm. on Homeland Sec., 119th Cong. (2025) (statement of Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ)) (stating that approximately 15-20 million people came into the US illegally under the Biden administration).

[17] Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163; see Press Release, Hearing Wrap-Up: Sanctuary State Governors Endanger American Lives by Defying Federal Immigration Enforcement Efforts, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability (Jun. 12, 2025).

[18] Hearing Wrap-Up, supra note XVII.

[19] Id.

[20] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, Q. 90, Art. 2.

[21] See Worldwide Threats to the Homeland (statement of Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ)) (“[W]hen we invite people into this country and they become citizens, they swear an oath to defend and support the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”); See also Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, USCIS (July 5, 2020),  https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america.

[22] See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (“If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”); see also Abraham Lincoln, Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Ill. (Jan. 27, 1838) (“Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.”).

[23] Matthew Plese, The Catholic Teaching on Borders, Immigration, and Human Dignity, The Fatima Center (Jan. 31, 2025), https://fatima.org/news-views/catholic-apologetics-298/.

[24] Id.

[25] U.S. Const. art. I–II.

[26] Plese, supra note XXIII.

[27] U.S. Const. art. III, § I.

[28] U.S. Const. art. I–III; see also 28 U.S.C. § 453 (2022).