Padilla, Democratic Immigration Leaders Challenge Constitutional Basis of Trump’s Sham “Invasion” Declaration
Democratic legislators to Trump: “We call on you to rescind your Proclamation and work with Congress to pass much-needed, overdue bipartisan immigration reform that respects immigrants’ dignity and the rule of law”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, joined other Democratic immigration leaders in challenging the constitutional basis of President Trump’s sham “invasion” proclamation, which the President believes would allow his Administration to circumvent federal immigration law.
In a letter to the President, the lawmakers characterized his desperate attempts to use emergency authorities as a pretext to avoid complying with immigration laws passed by Congress. The legislators then analyzed the President’s incorrect interpretation of the term “invasion,” which is contradicted by longstanding precedent from previous executive proclamations involving Presidents Roosevelt, Polk, and Lincoln.
“As a legal matter, migration is not an invasion.’ As courts have consistently held, an ‘invasion’ under the Constitution requires ‘armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the [] government.’ Courts’ requirement of an armed attack is consistent with how the term ‘invasion’ is used throughout the Constitution, alongside language like ‘insurrection’ and ‘rebellion,’” wrote the lawmakers. “Proclaiming a rhetorical ‘invasion’ would degrade protections throughout the Constitution—lowering the bar for suspending the writ of habeas corpus and even expanding the circumstances in which states may ‘engage in War’ without the approval of the federal government. Under our constitutional design, these exceptional powers are reserved for times of armed conflict; they are not available to respond to migration or other non-military matters.”
The legislators refuted the President’s incorrect statement that he can suspend or disregard the laws Congress passed, and called on him to rescind his unfounded proclamation.
“[T]he idea that the president has broad inherent power over immigration that allows him to override duly-enacted laws is unfounded and damaging. Congress, not the president, has the authority to make laws, including our immigration laws. And as the courts have long recognized, Congress has created a ‘comprehensive scheme governing all aspects of immigration and naturalization,’” continued the lawmakers. “The president has no authority to abandon or rewrite this comprehensive scheme; to the contrary, the president’s constitutional role is to take care that our immigration laws are faithfully executed.”
“The United States is not being invaded, it is not at war with migrants, and you must uphold our duly-enacted immigration laws. We have full faith that the courts will stand firm in the face of your attacks on the separation of powers. We call on you to rescind your Proclamation and work with Congress to pass much-needed, overdue bipartisan immigration reform that respects immigrants’ dignity and the rule of law,” concluded the lawmakers.
President Trump’s proclamation was riddled with falsehoods to enact his anti-immigrant agenda. Similarly, the Administration’s previous attempts to apply Title 42 authorities to migrants had no basis in public health.
Senator Padilla joined Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.-07), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, in signing the letter.
The letter is supported by the Brennan Center for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Senator Padilla is a leading voice in Congress opposing President Trump’s anti-immigrant actions and rhetoric. He sharply criticized Trump’s harmful executive orders targeting immigrants at the start of his second Administration. Last month, Padilla denounced Trump’s transfer of immigrants from the United States to Guantánamo as unlawful and demanded answers regarding these transfers. He also condemned the Trump Administration’s intended use of Bureau of Prisons facilities to detain immigrants as part of President Trump’s mass deportation agenda. Additionally, Padilla cosponsored the Born in the USA Act to effectively block the implementation of Trump’s unconstitutional Executive Order attempting to end birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States, or a similar subsequent Executive Order. Padilla also recently blasted the Trump Administration’s stop work order to organizations that provide legal services for unaccompanied children and demanded the Administration protect Congressionally mandated legal representation for these children in the immigration system. Last year, Padilla emphasized the dangers and immense economic costs of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation plans during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Full text of the letter is available here and below:
Dear President Trump:
We are writing to address the troubling and misguided interpretation of the Constitution advanced in your January 20, 2025 Proclamation titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion.”
Since you came into office, you have attempted to expand the scope of presidential power beyond that which is permitted by the United States Constitution and applicable federal laws. This Proclamation is no different. It raises two novel legal claims: (1) that the term “invasion,” as it is used in Article IV of the Constitution, means something other than an armed attack by a foreign power; and (2) that an “invasion,” so defined, triggers unilateral presidential power over immigration, including the power to suspend or disregard laws that Congress has duly enacted. These claims are not only legally and factually unfounded; they also threaten civil liberties and the constitutional separation of powers.
You state in your Proclamation that “millions of aliens who potentially pose significant threats to health, safety, and national security have moved into communities nationwide.” These statements, and your Proclamation, appear to be a part of a larger attempt to invoke any available authority—including extraordinary wartime, public health, and counterterrorism authorities—to circumvent domestic immigration laws and the U.S. Constitution, without factual or legal basis. For example, experts have found no connection between increased migration and crime, and studies have shown that for the past 150 years, immigrants have been convicted of crimes at a far lower rate than U.S.-born citizens. Prior attempts by your previous Administration to apply Title 42 authorities to migrants had no basis in public health. Similarly, there is no factual basis for the statements in your Proclamation.
As a legal matter, migration is not an “invasion.” As courts have consistently held, an “invasion” under the Constitution requires “armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the [] government.” Courts’ requirement of an armed attack is consistent with how the term “invasion” is used throughout the Constitution, alongside language like “insurrection” and “rebellion.” Proclaiming a rhetorical “invasion” would degrade protections throughout the Constitution—lowering the bar for suspending the writ of habeas corpus and even expanding the circumstances in which states may “engage in War” without the approval of the federal government. Under our constitutional design, these exceptional powers are reserved for times of armed conflict; they are not available to respond to migration or other non-military matters.
Presidents have long hewed to this understanding and proclaimed invasions sparingly, in the context of requesting a declaration of war from the Congress. President Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed an “invasion” in response to Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The following day, Roosevelt requested and received a declaration of war against Japan.
President James K. Polk also used the term “invasion” when he told Congress that Mexico had sent an armed force onto U.S. territory, “shed American blood upon the American soil,” and “proclaimed that hostilities have commenced.” He requested and received a declaration of war against Mexico. Notably, when Congress discovered that Polk had lied about the attack by Mexican forces, the House of Representatives, led by then-Representative Abraham Lincoln, passed language to censure Polk for “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” proclaiming an “invasion” to aggrandize presidential power. Furthermore, the idea that the president has broad inherent power over immigration that allows him to override duly-enacted laws is unfounded and damaging. Congress, not the president, has the authority to make laws, including our immigration laws. And as the courts have long recognized, Congress has created a “comprehensive scheme governing all aspects of immigration and naturalization.”
The president has no authority to abandon or rewrite this comprehensive scheme; to the contrary, the president’s constitutional role is to take care that our immigration laws are faithfully executed. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, which you cite in your Proclamation, does not support your claim to broad presidential power—and the language that you quote from that case is stripped of its context. Knauff, like other cases before and after it, simply upholds Congress’s authority to delegate important questions relating to immigration to the president, given the president’s constitutional role in managing foreign relations. Nothing in Knauff says that the president can violate laws passed by Congress, rather than complying with those laws. Any suggestion otherwise would fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s longstanding Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer framework. As Youngstown makes clear, where the president and Congress share power, the president may not act contrary to the laws Congress has passed. That fundamental rule would not change even if our nation were being invaded. As Justice William O. Douglas stated in his Youngstown concurrence, “[O]ur history and tradition rebel at the thought that the [Constitution’s] grant of military power [to the president] carries with it authority over civilian affairs.”
The United States is not being invaded, it is not at war with migrants, and you must uphold our duly-enacted immigration laws. We have full faith that the courts will stand firm in the face of your attacks on the separation of powers. We call on you to rescind your Proclamation and work with Congress to pass much-needed, overdue bipartisan immigration reform that respects immigrants’ dignity and the rule of law.
Sincerely,