Judge Sullivan Just Wrecked Trump's New Asylum Restrictions
"Because it is the will of Congress—not the whims of the executive—that determines the standard for expedited removal, the court finds that those policies are unlawful," Sullivan wrote in Wednesday's 107-page ruling.
December 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Updated 2:05 p.m.
A Washington federal judge declared unlawful Wednesday a set of new restrictions the Trump administration imposed on immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S. on the basis of domestic violence and fear of gangs.
The judge, Emmet Sullivan of Washington's federal trial court, said the Trump administration had run afoul of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Sullivan permanently enjoined the U.S. government from continuing the new policies, which were announced this summer by then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and demanded the return of immigrants named in the case who he said were unlawfully deported. Those immigrants, he wrote, should receive “new credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.”
“Many of these policies are inconsistent with the intent of Congress as articulated in the INA. And because it is the will of Congress—not the whims of the executive—that determines the standard for expedited removal, the court finds that those policies are unlawful,” Sullivan wrote in his 107-page ruling.
Sullivan's ruling marked the latest smackdown of the Trump administration's asylum policies. In November, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco ruled against the administration's move to restrict asylum-seekers along the U.S. southern border with Mexico. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this month upheld a temporary restraining order, and the Justice Department has taken that dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sullivan on Wednesday ordered the U.S. “to return to the United States the plaintiffs who were unlawfully deported and to provide them with new credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.”
The case, Grace v. Sessions, challenged new Trump administration policies that, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, gutted protections for asylum-seekers. “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Sessions said in a memo in June.
Sullivan said the Justice Department's directive “to deny most domestic violence or gang violence claims at the credible fear determination stage is fundamentally inconsistent with the threshold screening standard that Congress established: an alien's removal may not be expedited if there is a 'significant possibility' that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum.”
Jennifer Chang Newell, managing attorney of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued the case in front of Sullivan, called Wednesday's ruling a “defeat for the Trump administration's all-out assault on the rights of asylum seekers.” Newell said in a statement:
“The government's attempt to obliterate asylum protections is unlawful and inconsistent with our country's longstanding commitment to provide protection to immigrants fleeing for their lives.”
Sullivan made headlines in the case in August after learning that a mother and daughter had been deported while their asylum claims were pending before him. The judge called the move “outrageous” and ordered the government “to turn that plane around either now or when it lands.”
The Justice Department almost immediately requested Sullivan pause his order, preventing it from taking effect while the government considers an appeal. The government would be “irreparably harmed by the absence of any stay of an injunction,” the Justice Department said in a court filing. The government asking for a stay that would last through the duration of any challenge it brings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson said: “Under the laws passed by Congress, asylum is only for those who have a legitimate fear of persecution on the basis of their race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.” The government said it was reviewing options for further review “and we will continue to restore the rule of law in our immigration system.”
Sullivan's ruling in Grace v. Sessions is posted here:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
|Read more:
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