America’s Future Immigration Amicus Brief

The rule of law requires every branch of government to respect the limits of its authority. Congress, the President, and the courts each have responsibilities under our Constitution. Those boundaries matter, especially when a legal dispute affects immigration enforcement and our dealings with foreign nations.

As Board Chairman of America’s Future, I want you to understand what our recent amicus brief represents and why your support matters.

On September 28, America’s Future filed a brief in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., supporting the government’s request to stay a Massachusetts district court order concerning removals to third countries. These are removals to destinations other than those initially identified in an individual’s removal order.

An amicus brief, often called a “friend of the court” brief, allows an organization that is not a party to the lawsuit to present legal analysis for the court’s consideration. It is a formal filing that explains a position through statutes, constitutional principles, and relevant court decisions.

Our brief advances three central arguments.

First, we argue that the district court exceeded restrictions Congress placed on its authority over immigration enforcement. Specifically, the brief challenges classwide relief that, in our view, restrains removal operations despite the limits imposed by federal law.

Second, we defend Congress’s constitutional authority to define the jurisdiction of lower federal courts. Our position is that a judge cannot evade those limits by changing the label attached to the relief being ordered.

Third, we argue that judicial management of third-country removals interferes with executive responsibilities involving diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security. Arranging for another nation to accept someone subject to removal involves decisions our brief argues belong to the political branches.

These are our legal arguments, presented for the Supreme Court’s consideration.

On September 29, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request for a stay, pausing the district court’s February 25 order and judgment. The Court also agreed to hear the case and directed that arguments take place during its December 2026 session. The questions include the district court’s jurisdiction, its authority to grant classwide relief, and whether the government’s removal guidance complies with federal law and constitutional protections.

The stay is an important development. It does not resolve the merits of the case or establish that the Court adopted every argument in our brief. The legal questions remain before the Court.