Trump Wins Asylum Ruling in DC, But Cali. Judge Appears Skeptical of the Administration
Hours after Judge Timothy Kelly turned down a request for a temporary restraining order against the president's latest changes to the asylum policy, a California judge raised concerns about the president's changes.
July 24, 2019 at 11:21 AM
4 minute read
The Trump administration notched an early win in the latest fight over its asylum policy after a federal judge refused to issue a restraining order against it Wednesday, but a second judge hinted a similar challenge may be on shakier ground in California.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, turned down a request for a temporary restraining order in a ruling announced from the bench. The order follows a hearing held on Monday.
A similar fight is unfolded before U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California Wednesday. Tigar blocked the previous changes the administration made last year to limit asylum to those only entering the country through official ports of entry.
And on Wednesday, Tigar once again appeared skeptical of the administration's moves on asylum. Early in the hearing, Tigar said the evidence detailing the inadequacy of Mexico's own system for dealing with asylum seekers was “stunning.”
“There's some pretty tough stuff in there,” said Tigar later of the government's own evidence. “Applications are up dramatically but there's no indication that the Mexican asylum process has grown.
Trump's new rules make asylum seekers on the southern border ineligible unless they first sought such relief through another country they passed through before reaching the U.S. border.
The challengers in the Washington case, the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, are represented by a team from Hogan Lovells. They argued the new rules violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act since there was no notice and comment period.
The Hogan Lovells team said in a statement afterward that it firmly believes Trump's asylum policy violates the Constitution.
“This new rule attempts to create a third-country exception to the presumption of eligibility for asylum, and is likely to prevent most migrants from being able to seek refuge in this country,” said Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal, who is handling the case along with senior associate Mitchell Reich.
The White House, in a written statement, called Kelly's decision a victory for Americans concerned about the crisis at the southern border. “The court properly rejected the attempt of a few special interest groups to block a rule that discourages abuse of our asylum system,” the White House said. “The rule properly encourages migrants to seek asylum in other countries they have traveled through before reaching the United States and makes those who fail to do so ineligible for asylum, thereby foreclosing opportunistic claims by those who want to exploit our asylum system in an effort to immigrate unlawfully to the United States.”
Kelly was the first judge to hold a hearing on the new asylum rules, and subsequently, the first to rule on a temporary restraining order.
Tigar's handling of the previous litigation ultimately drew criticism from Trump, who called him an “Obama judge,” and said his administration can't win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Trump's comments drew a rare rebuke from Justice John Roberts. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement issued by the court. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
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 AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Volunteers Unreimbursed Expenses — Tax Incentives For Itemizers
- 2Carter Mario Achieves $225,000 Settlement in Motor Vehicle Case
- 3Legal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
- 4'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
- 5SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
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