On Wednesday, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a big victory, terminating a nationwide injunction that had blocked the White House’s ban on giving asylum to immigrants crossing the southern border who had crossed through a third country without seeking protection there.
On July 15, the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice issued the following statement:
On July 16th, a joint Interim Final Rule (IFR) issued by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security will publish in the Federal Register … Specifically, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are revising 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(c) to add a new bar to eligibility for asylum for an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border, but who did not apply for protection from persecution or torture where it was available in at least one third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which he or she transited en route to the United States.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan added, “Until Congress can act, this interim rule will help reduce a major ‘pull’ factor driving irregular migration to the United States and enable DHS and DOJ to more quickly and efficiently process cases originating from the southern border, leading to fewer individuals transiting through Mexico on a dangerous journey.”
As Fox News noted, on Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ended the nationwide injunction against the Trump ban but only did so partially, leaving California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington, all within the province of the 9th Circuit, immune from the Trump ban.
In July, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the White House ban. He wrote, “While the public has a weighty interest in the efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border, it also has a substantial interest in ensuring that the statutes enacted by its representatives are not imperiled by executive fiat,” adding that the injunction “would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors,” as The Texas Tribune reported.
Tigar’s decision prompted three judges on the 9th Circuit to tighten Tigar’s order so only Arizona and California would be under its rubric. New Mexico and Texas remained under the White House order.
The Wall Street Journal reported that on Monday, Tigar “reinstated the original scope, saying that only a nationwide injunction offers ‘complete relief.'” The Journal continued:
One plaintiff, Innovation Law Lab, operates in several circuits. Bifurcated asylum rules would force it to “redesign its workshops and templates.” Another plaintiff, Al Otro Lado, aids asylum seekers from an office in Tijuana, Mexico. A split system would obligate it “to provide a much broader range of advice.” Judge Tigar further cited “the need to maintain uniform immigration policy.” But the executive branch, which is responsible for that policy, has already moved to enforce its preferred approach outside the Ninth Circuit.
On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit issued an administrative stay blocking Tigar’s order in all states but those served by the 9th Circuit.
The case now moves back to the 9th Circuit; Fox News noted, “The San Francisco-based appellate court has seven Trump-appointed federal judges — more than any other federal appellate bench … Thirteen of the 29 seats are now occupied by GOP-appointed judges. Last year, that number stood at six.”
