Supreme Court Won't Block Trump's New Asylum Rule, for Now
Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented: "By granting a stay, the court simultaneously lags behind and jumps ahead of the courts below."
September 11, 2019 at 06:45 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday boosted the Trump administration's efforts to limit immigration by allowing a rule to take effect that requires asylum seekers to first seek refuge in countries they pass through before coming to the United States.
In Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, the high court, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, temporarily lifted a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of the so-called "third country" asylum rule. The injunction first was imposed July 24 by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar o the Northern District of California. Tigar said the rule was likely invalid because it was "inconsistent with existing asylum laws."
The high court, without explanation, granted the government's request for a stay pending the outcome of the government's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or disposition by the Supreme Court of a petition for review, if a petition is filed following the Ninth Circuit decision.
Describing the government's stay request as "extraordinary," Sotomayor wrote:
"Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees—and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher—the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law."
Granting a stay pending an appeal should be an "extraordinary act," Sotomayor said, but the government appears to treat this approach as the "new normal." And while the government used to request it rarely, "now it does so reflexively," she wrote.
Under the asylum rule, Honduran and Salvaduran asylum seekers, for example, would have to apply first for protection from Guatemala or Mexico and be denied asylum before being eligible to apply in the United States.
In his request to block the injunction pending an appeal, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote, "The injunction prohibits the Executive Branch from implementing an interim final rule adopted to address an ongoing crisis at the southern border, with significant implications for ongoing diplomatic negotiations and foreign relations."
He also argued that U.S. asylum law expressly authorizes the relevant federal agencies to adopt new categorical bars to asylum, and the "third country" rule bar is consistent with the asylum statute's other provisions.
"At a minimum, the injunction is vastly overbroad," argued Francisco, and "violates the well-settled rule that injunctive relief must be limited to redressing a plaintiff's own injuries, and unduly interferes with the Executive's authority to establish immigration policy."
The organizations opposing the asylum rule, represented by Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, accused the administration of "a blatant end-run" around the congressionally enacted asylum law.
"Congress specifically addressed when an applicant can be denied asylum based on possible protection in a third country: when the applicant has been 'firmly resettled' in a third country or when the United States has signed a formal safe-third-country agreement with another country that provides access to a full and fair process for the individuals we turn away," wrote Gelernt. "These are the only two exceptions permitted by the statute and neither is met here."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 16 granted the administration a partial stay of Tigar's injunction. The appellate panel, ruling 2-1, barred the rule's effect only in the nine states within the Ninth Circuit which include the border states of Arizona and California.
The panel ruled that Tigar failed to provide enough support for a nationwide or universal injunction, but that the challengers to the asylum rule were likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. But Tigar on Sept. 9 reinstated the injunction's nationwide scope pending a trial on the rule's legality. He said that the appellate court's action permitted him to consider an augmented record on the need for such an injunction.
Tigar then found that the organizations challenging the rule would suffer harms from the diversion of resources caused by having the rule operate outside of, but not inside of the Ninth Circuit. He also said a nationwide injunction was necessary to maintain uniform immigration policy and anything but a nationwide injunction would create "major administrability issues." Nationwide relief, he added, is also supported by the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
One day after Tigar acted, the Ninth Circuit issued an administrative stay of the district court's Sept. 9 injunction which, in effect, restored the state of affairs that existed when the Justice Department filed its application in the Supreme Court to block Tigar's July 24 injunction.
The Justice Department was supported in the high court by amicus briefs from the Immigration Reform Law Institute and 11 states led by Arizona. East Bay Sanctuary received amicus support from 28 nonprofit organizations and law school clinics that represent asylum seekers across the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court's order is posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250