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 AllTravis 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 readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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