Trump Loses Another Asylum Ruling, as DC Judge Vacates 'Port of Entry' Rule
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said the rule violates federal immigration laws and violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
August 02, 2019 at 03:20 PM
3 minute read
The Trump administration’s new rule that would limit asylum claims on the southern border to immigrants who enter through a designated port of entry was vacated by a Washington federal judge Friday.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found President Donald Trump’s rule is both contrary to national immigration laws and violates the Administrative Procedures Act. As such, Moss said he is required to vacate the rule instead of issue a national injunction as the plaintiffs, all migrants, requested.
Moss also rejected a request to only apply his ruling to the plaintiffs named in the case before him. Moss, in his 77-page order, questioned how he could vacate a rule for the named plaintiffs only, without vacating the rule as a whole.
“Fortunately, the court need not engage in such logistical gymnastics because the language of the APA and the controlling D.C. Circuit precedent are unambiguous,” Moss wrote. “The Court, accordingly, concludes that the proper remedy is to set the rule aside, and the legal consequences of that result are not limited ‘to the individual’ plaintiffs.”
Moss’ order marks a win for a team of attorneys from Hogan Lovells, Williams & Connolly, Human Rights First and the National Immigrant Justice Center.
Moss’ order comes nearly a week after a federal judge in San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction blocking another Trump administration rule that barred asylum for migrants who failed to apply for protection in a country they transited through before reaching the United States. That policy was directed at stemming the tide of Central American migrants coming to the country through Mexico.
Judge Jon Tigar in the Northern District of California ruled on July 24 that the rule “is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws” passed by Congress.
Tigar’s decision ran counter to a decision issued earlier that day by a judge in Washington, D.C., who declined a similar request to block the new rule. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of the District of Columbia issued a bench order denying a request for a temporary restraining order from the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, which are represented by a team from Hogan Lovells.
Moss’s ruling is posted below:
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 AllSupreme Court Reinstates Horseracing Safety Law, Blocks 5th Circuit Decision
Must EPA Challenges Go to DC Circuit? Supreme Court Will Decide
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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