DEVELOPMENTS IN IMMIGRATION POLICY THIS WEEK
Here, we summarize some of the most important recent developments in immigration policy on the federal, legal, state, and local levels.
Federal
Reconciliation Package Clears Senate 51-50, Poised to Pass House Before July 4 Deadline
The Senate passed its version of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” by a narrow 51-50 margin on July 1, sending the massive immigration enforcement and tax package back to the House for final consideration before the president’s July 4 deadline. The immigration provisions in the Senate bill remained largely unchanged from the House version that passed 215-214 on May 21, reflecting broad Republican consensus on pouring billions into border security and interior enforcement operations. Both chambers’ bills prioritize massive funding increases for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) detention capacity, border wall construction, and deportation operations, while imposing fees for immigrants seeking humanitarian protection and pathways to legal status.
The Senate’s “Byrd bath” process, conducted by the Senate Parliamentarian to ensure provisions comply with reconciliation rules, resulted in only minor modifications to the immigration framework. Several provisions were struck for violating budget reconciliation requirements, including restrictions on federal courts issuing preliminary injunctions and certain state enforcement authorities, while some fee structures were adjusted to meet parliamentary standards. However, the core enforcement priorities remained intact, including $45 billion for immigration detention facilities and more than $46 billion for border wall construction. The House is expected to quickly accept the Senate’s changes and pass the final legislation before the July 4 recess.
Administration to Prioritize Denaturalization Cases for Criminal Convictions
In an internal memo issued on June 11, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Division directs attorneys to prioritize denaturalization cases, especially those involving alleged security threats, fraud, or serious criminal conduct. The memo emphasizes a more aggressive stance, with categories of focus including individuals linked to terrorism, war crimes, or significant immigration fraud. According to the memo, denaturalization proceedings will be pursued “in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence,” and the department has been given broader discretion to act on cases of suspected misconduct. The guidance is a significant departure from traditional practice, as it elevates denaturalization to one of the Civil Division’s top five enforcement priorities and expands the criteria for targeting naturalized citizens beyond the narrow circumstances previously pursued.
Legal scholars warn that the broad discretion given to DOJ attorneys could undermine longstanding constitutional protections and create a dangerous precedent for politically motivated enforcement. They emphasize that in civil denaturalization proceedings, individuals are not entitled to an attorney if they cannot afford one, and the government faces a lower burden of proof than in criminal cases. Others argue this approach creates “two levels of citizenship”, where naturalized Americans face the constant threat of losing their status for conduct that would not affect native-born citizens. The memo’s vague language around “national security threats” and its provision allowing attorneys to pursue “any other cases” the division deems important has raised concerns about arbitrary enforcement and the potential for the administration to weaponize denaturalization against political opponents.
Alligator Alcatraz Opens as Deaths in Detention Facilities Mount
The administration opened the controversial Alligator Alcatraz immigration detention facility in Florida’s Everglades on July 1, with President Trump and Governor Ron DeSantis delivering remarks at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the $450 million complex. During their visit, Governor Desantis and the president suggested that state officials are moving forward with plans to deputize nine Florida National Guard Judge Advocate General Corps officers (JAGs) as immigration judges to expedite deportation proceedings. Organizers capitalized on the opening by selling branded merchandise, including t-shirts and hats featuring the facility’s now-official name, with proceeds supporting the state Republican party. Individuals arrested by Florida state law enforcement officers deputized under the newly-expanded 287(g) program will be sent to the facility, which was scheduled to begin receiving individuals for detention on July 2.
The facility’s design and conditions have drawn immediate comparisons to concentration camps from human rights advocates, who condemned housing thousands of people in tents during Florida’s hurricane season. The opening comes as at least 13 people have died in Immigration and Customes Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities under the Trump administration in the first six months of 2025, already exceeding the total number of deaths recorded in all of 2024. Despite mounting concerns about detention conditions, administration officials have displayed callousness toward the deaths, with Border Czar Tom Homan responding to questions about a 75-year-old Cuban man’s death in custody by stating “people die in custody” and dismissing calls for improved medical care. The administration has simultaneously restricted congressional access to detention facilities, removing guidance from ICE’s website that acknowledged lawmakers’ legal right to enter detention facilities without notice and requiring week-long advance requests for visits, in apparent violation of federal statute granting members of Congress inspection authority.
Travel Ban Being Used to Block Refugee Resettlement
Tensions in the Trump administration’s approach to refugee resettlement deepened this week, as government attorneys announced that the travel ban would apply to refugees. This announcement marks the latest development in Pacito v. Trump, a case brought by leading resettlement agencies challenging the constitutionality of the Executive Order that suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in January. In mid-May, a federal judge in Seattle ruled that the Administration must “immediately” resettle 160 “injunction-protected” refugees as part of the case. However, by applying the June 4 travel ban to those 160 refugees, the administration has effectively barred approximately two-thirds of them from entering the U.S. Melissa Keaney, a senior supervising attorney for the International Refugee Assistance Project, noted that employing the travel ban against refugee resettlement was another unlawful barrier to resettlement and an evasion of court orders.
Officials continue to justify the broader restrictions on refugee admissions and the application of the travel ban by citing national security and terrorism risks, despite consistent research showing that refugees are associated with lower crime rates in host communities. Meanwhile, the administration has simultaneously accelerated efforts to resettle 1,000 Afrikaners by the end of September.
Legal
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Asylum Ban at Southern Border, Rules “Invasion” Proclamation Exceeds Presidential Authority To Bar Asylum
D.C. District Court Judge Randolph Moss ruled on July 2 that President Trump’s January 20 proclamation declaring an “invasion” at the U.S.-Mexico border cannot be used to categorically deny asylum access to migrants, finding that the administration exceeded its constitutional and statutory authority. In a comprehensive 128-page decision, Moss determined that Trump’s proclamation had attempted to create “an alternative immigration system” that has no basis in federal law. He ordered the administration to allow individuals at the border to apply for protection before removing them. The ruling applies to all asylum seekers currently present in the U.S. and those “who will be present”, with the judge certifying them as a legal class to ensure broad relief following the Supreme Court’s recent limitations on nationwide injunctions.
Judge Moss emphasized that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the “sole and exclusive” means for the federal government to remove people from the U.S., regardless of how cumbersome the administration views the process. While Moss acknowledged the “enormous challenges” facing the executive branch in managing border security and asylum backlogs, he concluded that these difficulties do not justify circumventing congressional authority or the president’s enumerated constitutional powers. The judge stayed his ruling for 14 days, allowing the Trump administration to appeal, with the case likely headed to the Supreme Court.
Appeals Court Considers Deportations Under the Alien Enemies Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments on June 30 over President Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), in what is expected to be the first case on this issue to reach the Supreme Court. The three-judge panel appeared skeptical of challenges to Trump’s invocation of the wartime statute, with Judge Andrew Oldham questioning whether federal courts have authority to “countermand the president of the United States when he says this is an invasion.” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued that the gang’s alleged presence in over 40 states constitutes sufficient grounds for invoking the act, while attorneys for the deported individuals countered that the law has been used only three times in U.S. history during actual wars and that multiple intelligence agencies have questioned the claimed ties between the gang and Venezuela’s government. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling will likely determine whether the Supreme Court takes up the broader constitutional question, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh having already signaled the Court’s interest in providing “prompt and final resolution” to the issue.
Supreme Court Urged to Clarify Ruling on Third Country Deportations
The Trump administration has accused U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of “unprecedented defiance” of the Supreme Court’s authority after the judge ruled that his previous orders, protecting migrants from deportation to South Sudan, remain in effect despite the Court’s June 23 decision pausing his preliminary injunction. The administration filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court seeking clarification of its unsigned ruling, which stayed Murphy’s April injunction that had required migrants to receive meaningful opportunities to contest their removal to third countries before deportation. However, Murphy cited Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s 19-page dissent to argue that the Court’s order only addressed the preliminary injunction and not his subsequent remedial orders. Legal experts have criticized the Court’s failure to explain its reasoning in the “shadow docket” ruling, with constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck arguing that the ambiguity has created unnecessary confusion and that “principled explanations for the Court’s decisionmaking are the primary thing that separates exercises of judicial power from exercises of raw political power.” Immigration law experts also noted that the Court’s decision leaves practitioners “with no guidance as to what to do to ensure that clients who may be at risk of removal to a third country can receive the due process to which they are entitled.”
State and Local
Trump Administration Files Lawsuit Against Los Angeles Over Sanctuary Policies Amid National Guard Deployment
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit on June 30 against the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass, and the City Council, characterizing the city’s sanctuary policies as unconstitutional and demanding they be permanently blocked from enforcement. Mayor Bass responded to the lawsuit by calling it “an attempt to overturn the will of the city” and emphasized that Los Angeles is “a city built by immigrants” with policies designed to protect immigrant residents and encourage crime reporting. Meanwhile, Attorney General Pamela Bondi argued that sanctuary policies were “the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement” witnessed in Los Angeles.
The lawsuit comes against the backdrop of the administration’s deployment of approximately 4,800 federal troops to the city in response to protests responding to immigration raids that have arrested more than 1,600 immigrants in Southern California over the past month. Military officials are now requesting to reassign some of these forces, with General Gregory Guillot formally asking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to return 200 National Guard troops to wildfire-fighting duties as California enters peak fire season.
BILLS INTRODUCED AND CONSIDERED
It’s challenging to keep up with the deluge of proposed legislation in the 119th Congress. So, every week, we round up federal legislative proposals that have recently been introduced and that are relevant to immigration policy.
H.R. 1
One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Please see our explainer, linked here.
Sponsored by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX-19) (0 cosponsors)
05/20/2025 Introduced by Rep. Arrington
05/22/2025 Passed the U.S House of Representatives 215-214
07/01/2025 Passed the U.S. Senate 51-50
LEGISLATIVE FLOOR CALENDAR
The U.S. Senate will be in session from Monday, July 7, through Friday, July 11, while the House of Representatives will be in session from Monday, July 7, through Thursday, July 10.
GOVERNMENT REPORTS
Reports by bodies such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General provide invaluable information on immigration policy and practice. Here, we give brief summaries of new immigration-related reports, with links to the resources themselves in case you want to learn more.
Congressional Research Service (CRS); Trump v. CASA, Inc.: Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions; Publicly Released July, 1
The memo explains that the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. limited federal district courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions, holding that the Judiciary Act of 1789 does not authorize universal injunctions that extend beyond what is necessary to provide complete relief to the parties before the court, while leaving open several avenues for litigants to seek broad relief through Administrative Procedure Act challenges, class actions, and state-led litigation. The memo further clarifies that the ruling arose from challenges to President Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order and remands the cases to lower courts to determine appropriate injunctive relief scope, while the substantive constitutional challenges to the executive order remain pending and will likely reach the Supreme Court on the merits.
SPOTLIGHT ON NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM RESOURCES
The Forum is constantly publishing new policy-focused resources that engage with some of the most topical issues around immigration today. Here are a few that are particularly relevant this week:
One Big Beautiful Bill Act: Immigration Provisions
Our resource outlines the funding provided by the House reconciliation bill, H.R.1, for immigration purposes and the expansive policy provisions also included in the bill.
Expanded Expedited Removal and Challenges to Due Process
While the practice of expedited removal is well-established, the administration’s recent actions to expand its use raise a number of significant concerns. Our latest article explains why the administration’s current application of expedited removal is in tension with fundamental due process principles, as it sacrifices fairness for speed, increasing the risk of errors and unjust outcomes, a danger to citizens and noncitizens alike.
Explainer: U.S. Immigration Detention and Custody Standards
Our explainer examines how U.S. immigration detention and custody facilities, operated by agencies like ICE, CBP, and ORR are governed by a patchwork of constitutional, statutory, and agency-specific standards. It highlights ongoing challenges such as inadequate oversight, prolonged detentions, and insufficient protections for vulnerable populations, underscoring the need for stronger scrutiny as detention capacity could expand dramatically due to funding included in reconciliation.
*As of publication (7/3/25 at 1:30 PM EST)
This Bulletin is not intended to be comprehensive. Please contact Nicci Mattey, Senior Policy & Advocacy Associate at the National Immigration Forum, with questions, comments, and suggestions for additional items to be included. Nicci can be reached at nmattey@immigrationforum.org. Thank you.