Ninth Circuit Panel Fractures Over National Injunctions With Trump’s Latest Asylum Order
“Should asylum law be administered differently in Texas than in California?” Senior Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima asked in his dissent.
August 16, 2019 at 01:23 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A split panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday curbed a national injunction against the Trump administration’s new asylum restrictions, only blocking the new policy within its own jurisdiction.
The judges stated that they would not issue a stay of U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar’s order last month temporarily stopping the new asylum rule. But the court’s majority found that the case’s record wasn’t strong enough to block the rule across the nation.
In the majority opinion, Judges Milan Smith and Mark Bennett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the Justice Department didn’t make the “required ‘strong showing’ that they are likely to succeed on the merits on this issue” in order to receive a stay.
However, the pair found that “the nationwide scope of the injunction is not supported by the record as it stands.”
“To permit such broad injunctions as a general rule, without an articulated connection to a plaintiff’s particular harm, would unnecessarily ‘stymie novel legal challenges and robust debate’ arising in different judicial districts,” their order states. They said that Tigar “failed to discuss whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy plaintiffs’ alleged harm.”
The judges wrote that the lower court “clearly erred by failing to consider whether nationwide relief is necessary to remedy plaintiffs’ alleged harms.”
They suggested that allowing the national order to remain in place could allow for further nationwide injunctions to become the norm, even if they aren’t necessarily needed.
“Indeed, were we to adopt the dissent’s view, a nationwide injunction would result any time an enjoined action has potential nationwide effects,” the majority wrote. “Such an approach would turn broad injunctions into the rule rather than the exception.”
And they said that limiting the injunction “allows other litigants wishing to challenge the rule to do so.”
In a dissenting opinion, Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote that he agrees a stay should not be granted. However, he questioned the decision to limit the scope of the injunction, calling the need for a national order “obvious.”
“Should asylum law be administered differently in Texas than in California? These issues and problems illustrate why tinkering with the merits on a limited stay motion record can be risky,” Tashima wrote.
The judges’ clash over the scope of the national injunction comes after the Trump administration has promised to seek to bring to an end the use of the nationwide orders, which have impacted many of the president’s policies.
The rule, announced by Trump officials in July, makes most migrants who pass through a third country before arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border ineligible for asylum.
Friday’s ruling has implications for a similar lawsuit filed in D.C. District Court, where U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of the District of Columbia decided not to issue a temporary restraining order against the rule. That lawsuit was brought by Hogan Lovells on behalf of immigration groups.
But just hours later, Tigar issued his own preliminary national injunction, finding in his July 24 order that the asylum rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
That ruling effectively overrode Kelly’s initial decision, but Friday’s ruling now opens the door for Hogan Lovells to again seek a preliminary injunction in D.C. court.
The Ninth Circuit’s order means that immigration officials can now begin enforcing the asylum restrictions outside of the circuit’s scope.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the plaintiffs in the California case, said it would keep challenging the new rule after the order was issued.
“The court properly refused to let the new asylum ban go into effect, though currently limited to the Ninth Circuit,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement. “We will continue fighting to end the ban entirely.”
Read the ruling:
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 AllDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 2NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 3US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Think About Why You Want the Role, Because It Is Not an Easy Job,' Says Aaron Rubin of Morrison Foerster
- 5People in the News—Nov. 22, 2024—Marshall Dennehey, Buchanan Ingersoll
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