Trump Administration Sued by ACLU Over Asylum Restrictions
Attorneys for the plaintiffs say the administration's move is a “direct violation of Congress's clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar.”
November 09, 2018 at 03:16 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal lawsuit targeting the Trump administration's latest moves on asylum seekers was filed in San Francisco federal court Friday afternoon, claiming their new restriction violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit comes after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen issued an interim final rule Thursday barring asylum for people who cross through the southern border outside designated ports of entry. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Friday to that effect.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Constitutional Rights, who represent the plaintiffs in the suit, are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
In their complaint filed at the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, attorneys say the administration's move is a “direct violation of Congress's clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar.”
They also contend the rule violated the APA because agency heads “promulgated the rule without the required procedural steps and without good cause for immediately putting the rule into effect.” The APA normally requires agencies to undergo a period of public notice and comment for proposed rule changes.
The plaintiffs suing the Trump administration are the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles, all nonprofit groups that provide aid for asylum seekers.
“President Trump's new asylum ban is illegal. Neither the president nor his cabinet secretaries can override the clear commands of U.S. law, but that's exactly what they're trying to do,” Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said Friday.
“This action undermines the rule of law and is a great moral failure because it tries to take away protections from individuals facing persecution. It's the opposite of what America should stand for,” he said.
The Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.
The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security in a statement defended the administration's restriction as a “lawful order.”
“Under the laws of this country, the President has the right to suspend the entry of aliens if he determines it to be in the national interest—and that is what President Trump has done,” they said. They added: “We should not have to go to court to defend the President's clear legal authority or our rights as a sovereign nation, but we will not hesitate to do so. We are confident that the rule of law will prevail.”
Read the complaint:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
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