States have a fundamental right to challenge federal overreach that impacts their borders and resources. Using the court system to force the federal government to adhere to its own statutory limits is a valid exercise of state sovereignty.

This strategy unfairly impacts vulnerable populations who rely on established immigration protections. Abruptly vacating rules without public notice or comment leaves refugees and immigrants without the due process they were promised.

The judiciary should not be used as a tool for political policy-making. When the executive branch and a state agree to vacate a rule, they are effectively using the court to rubber-stamp a political agenda, which degrades the independence of the judicial branch.

Allowing states to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act through collusive lawsuits undermines the separation of powers. Regulatory changes should be made through transparent, public processes, not through private agreements between states and the federal government.

The public has a right to participate in the rulemaking process. By using litigation to circumvent this, the government denies citizens and stakeholders the ability to voice their concerns about significant changes to immigration policy.

Using the courts to force policy changes creates a chaotic, patchwork legal environment. It leads to constant uncertainty for law enforcement, legal professionals, and the immigrants themselves, as rules are frequently paused or vacated.

Reducing the burden of unvetted immigration policies saves state taxpayers significant money on social services and legal processing. Ensuring that immigration rules are strictly enforced protects state budgets and local infrastructure.

The current administrative process is too slow to address urgent border security and immigration integrity issues. Direct legal action provides a necessary, efficient mechanism to correct flawed federal policies that have been in place for years.

Strengthening immigration enforcement through legal challenges is essential for national security. By removing policies that weaken border control, states help ensure that only those with legal status are permitted to remain.

When the federal government refuses to enforce immigration laws as intended by Congress, states must step in to protect their citizens. Litigation is the most effective way to hold federal agencies accountable for their regulatory actions.