The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly considering shutting down Customs and Border Protection processing at certain airports and redirecting international travelers elsewhere. The issue is not whether DHS has authority over customs and immigration. The issue is whether it can use that authority for openly political purposes.
In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney Nate Charles examines the constitutional doctrine prohibiting arbitrary and capricious government action and explains why the administration’s own stated rationale may create serious legal problems.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that agencies must base their decisions on facts, evidence, and lawful governmental objectives. Agencies cannot rely on factors Congress never authorized them to consider, and courts are not required to accept explanations that do not match reality.
This episode explores:
• What the arbitrary-and-capricious standard actually means• Why agencies must provide rational explanations for their decisions• The difference between legitimate operational justifications and political retaliation• Why openly political motives can undermine otherwise lawful governmental actions• How due process protects against arbitrary exercises of governmental power
At stake is a fundamental principle of constitutional government: public power must be exercised for public purposes, not political grudges.
Can the federal government use immigration and customs authority to punish cities whose politics it dislikes? In this episode, attorney Nate Charles explains the constitutional doctrine that may make such actions unlawful and why the administration’s own public statements could be its biggest legal problem.
