When electing representatives, we entrust them to work through their differences and develop solutions that strengthen our country and keep our citizens safe. However, a combination of Congress’s inability to pass vital legislation and a resulting increase in presidential discretion to address politically divisive policy issues has led to an era of litigation that ironically weakens the validity of executive actions and hurts our national security.

Decades of congressional stalemate regarding immigration law and border policy have led to a patchwork of policies dictated solely by presidential action without significant input from the legislative branch. This trend has provided fertile ground for legal challenges and has resulted in a plethora of initiatives on the docket at every level of our court system, often with conflicting rulings from different parts of our legal system.

A recent example is the Biden administration’s current legal battles surrounding the implementation of new asylum rules. In California, a federal judge ruled the administration must stop enforcing the policy, but in short order, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused the order to allow the administration to prepare an appeal. At the same time, Republican states have filed litigation in federal court in Texas, arguing that the new rule is too lenient on immigrants.

Another clear example of this is what seems like the never-ending tennis match of court cases against the 2012 program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which provides legal protection against deportation for young adults who were brought illegally to the United States as children and provides them with temporary work authorization. Some 11 years later, just this summer, the federal district court in the southern district of Texas ruled that the program is illegal.

Various versions of the policy and related programs have been heard in multiple courts over the past decade, with courts ruling both in favor of and against the policy, including one Supreme Court ruling allowing the program to continue. While the program rides a litigious merry-go-round, hundreds of thousands of people who have lived in America their entire lives are dealing with extreme uncertainty about what their future holds.

Since the Obama administration, the use of litigation by states and other groups has resulted in dozens of cases leading courts to issue sweeping orders stopping or restarting programs or policies, often on a nationwide basis. In some situations, policies have been halted and restarted several times before the case is ultimately resolved — if it ever is. Across Democratic and Republican administrations, litigation around prioritizing deportation, implementing travel restrictions, and creating and terminating border enforcement policies has created significant uncertainty as courts rule in these matters. The Left cheered when judges jumped in to block Trump administration actions, only to find that the Right could play the same game with the Biden administration.

While courts have an essential role in ensuring federal policies are lawful, the current situation is causing grave harm to our immigration system and posing a risk to our national security. The stop-and-go nature of court orders, especially nationwide injunctions, creates uncertainty, destabilizes our strained immigration system, and provides an opportunity for foreign actors to take advantage of our dysfunction to the detriment of our security.

The trend of courts increasingly intervening in this area also risks eviscerating presidential discretionary authorities that are important for our foreign policy and national security. And while critics of executive overreach may find the increasingly activist judiciary to be a useful check, it is important that the executive branch retains flexibility to take needed steps to secure our nation and ensure we can respond to events around the world.

The only way for America to escape the endless litigation loop is for Congress to enshrine immigration policies into law. While the goal in Washington and for advocates is often complete immigration reform, piecemeal legislation addressing solvable issues such as DACA and immigration enforcement would lessen the growing judicial role, strengthen our national security, and damper the overuse of nationwide injunctions.

If Congress puts to rest even a few of our immigration fights, the people and the nation's security will greatly benefit.

C. Stewart Verdery Jr. served as assistant secretary for homeland security in the George W. Bush administration and as general counsel to the Senate Republican whip. He is the CEO of Monument Advocacy and a member of the Council on National Security and Immigration.