Executive Order 13751

Executive Order 13751
Name	Executive Order 13751
Type	Executive order
Signed by	Donald Trump
Date signed	2016-12-21
Summary	Directive on identifying and removing unauthorized aliens

Executive Order 13751. Signed on December 21, 2016, by Donald Trump, this executive order directed federal agencies to prioritize the identification and removal of certain noncitizens. The order intersected with existing statutes such as the Immigration and Nationality Act, engaged agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, and influenced litigation brought in federal courts including the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Background and Purpose

The order arose amid campaign and early-administration priorities articulated by Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Reince Priebus focused on immigration enforcement and public safety. It followed policy statements from the 2016 Republican National Convention and responded to debates stemming from decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States on related matters such as Arizona v. United States. Policymakers cited incidents highlighted by media outlets including Fox News, The New York Times, and The Washington Post to justify enhanced removal priorities. The order referenced coordination with agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review to implement enforcement strategies consistent with directives contained in prior documents such as memoranda from the Attorney General of the United States.

Provisions and Requirements

Key provisions directed federal agencies to compile lists of noncitizens subject to removal priorities and to facilitate the sharing of immigration status information. It invoked authorities under statutes including the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and directed collaboration between Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Department of State consular processes regarding inadmissibility. The order required heads of agencies like the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services to identify aliens who could be removed under categories specified in the order and to report information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It called for the use of databases maintained by the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation where appropriate to locate removable noncitizens, and it emphasized information exchange with state and local entities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287(g) program partners and the State of California's law enforcement agencies.

Implementation and Federal Agency Roles

Implementation responsibilities were assigned across the federal executive branch, with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States directed to issue guidance. Agencies including the Department of Labor, Department of Education, and Department of Housing and Urban Development were instructed to cooperate in identifying unauthorized noncitizens in programmatic contexts. The Office of Management and Budget was tasked with assessing budgetary impacts, and the Office of Personnel Management was implicated for employment eligibility verification measures in coordination with the Social Security Administration. Interagency working groups drawing participants from the National Security Council and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were envisioned to reconcile privacy and civil liberties considerations addressed by entities such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Impact on Immigration Enforcement and Workforce

The order influenced operational priorities for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, shaping arrest, detention, and removal practices reported by advocacy organizations including National Immigration Forum and Migration Policy Institute. Employers subject to Form I-9 verification and programs like E-Verify experienced renewed enforcement attention; sectors employing noncitizen labor such as agriculture represented by groups like the United Farm Workers and technology employers represented by TechAmerica noted consequences for staffing. State and local jurisdictions such as San Francisco, New York City, and Cook County, Illinois confronted adjustments to cooperation policies with federal immigration authorities. Labor unions including the AFL–CIO and business associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reacted to potential workforce disruptions and compliance costs.

Legal Challenges and Litigation

Multiple lawsuits were filed challenging aspects of the order or its implementing actions in federal courts including the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiffs including State of California, State of Washington, and civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center raised claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and doctrines derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants included the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States. Courts considered issues similar to those addressed in precedents like Kleindienst v. Mandel and INS v. Chadha, while motions for preliminary injunctions invoked standards articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc..

Reception and Political Response

Political reactions split along partisan lines with endorsements from Republican figures such as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and criticism from Democratic leaders including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Advocacy organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Southern Poverty Law Center condemned aspects of the order, while law enforcement associations like the Fraternal Order of Police expressed support for enhanced removal priorities. International responses referenced positions from entities like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and foreign governments including Mexico and Canada concerned about cross-border implications. Media commentary appeared across outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Politico analyzing potential administrative, legal, and social consequences.

Category:United States executive orders