Judge Tigar Doubles Down on National Injunction for Trump's Latest Asylum Rule
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found that "a nationwide injunction is supported by the need to maintain uniform immigration policy."
September 09, 2019 at 12:40 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California on Monday reinstated a national injunction blocking the Trump administration's new asylum restrictions, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially limited the order to just the circuit's geographic bounds.
Tigar wrote that while there may be circumstances in which a national injunction is inappropriate, the case before him—challenging a new rule that stops asylum seekers who pass through a third country before arriving at the U.S.'s southern border from being granted asylum—merits such an order.
"The question now before the court is whether those harms can be addressed by any relief short of a nationwide injunction. The answer is that they cannot," Tigar wrote.
The judge's ruling comes after he signaled in a court hearing last week that he would reinstate the national injunction. A Ninth Circuit panel last month limited the injunction to its boundaries, but said "the district court retains jurisdiction to further develop the record in support of a preliminary injunction extending beyond the Ninth Circuit."
Government attorneys argued that Tigar didn't have the authority to reinstate the national injunction.
But Tigar wrote that "the most plausible reading" of the Ninth Circuit's ruling means he is permitted to fill out the record of the case, and issue a subsequent order on a nationwide injunction as a result.
He said that, if the circuit were to disagree with this order and his interpretation of their ruling, he would issue an indicative ruling saying he would grant the immigration groups' motion to reinstate the national injunction.
The Trump administration announced in July that it would adopt a rule to block asylum seekers from being granted the protections if the migrants passed through a third country without applying for asylum there before arriving at the U.S.'s southern border. The new restrictions were swiftly met with several legal challenges.
The Ninth Circuit panel split over the breadth of the national injunction in an order last month.
Judges Milan Smith and Mark Bennett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote in the majority opinion that "the nationwide scope of the injunction is not supported by the record as it stands."
But Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, writing in a dissenting opinion that it was "obvious" that a national injunction should be in place.
"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 at the time.
Tigar agreed with Tashima's approach to immigration law in his order Monday, writing that "a nationwide injunction is supported by the need to maintain uniform immigration policy."
"While this factor may not, by itself, support the issuance of a nationwide injunction, it weighs in its favor," the judge added.
He also found that the immigration organizations challenging the asylum rule—including Innovation Law Lab and Al Otro Lado—would suffer irreparable harm if the asylum rule were not blocked nationally.
Tigar cited the groups' arguments that they would have to change their resources for asylum-seekers crossing the border at different parts of the country as evidence of that harm.
A pair of similar cases are playing out in D.C. District Court, where Judge Timothy Kelly is set to hold a hearing Wednesday on a motion for a preliminary injunction against the same rule.
Kelly initially ruled last month against granting a temporary restraining order against the asylum restrictions in a case brought forward by Hogan Lovells attorneys, but Tigar ordered the preliminary injunction in federal court in California later the same day.
Read the ruling:
Read more:
Ninth Circuit Panel Fractures Over National Injunctions With Trump's Latest Asylum Order
Trump Loses Another Asylum Ruling, as DC Judge Vacates 'Port of Entry' Rule
SF Judge Again Blocks Trump's Changes to Asylum Rules
Roberts Aligns With Liberal Wing in Ruling Against Trump's Asylum Ban
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
© 2025 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 All'Lack of Independence' or 'Tethered to the Law'? Witnesses Speak on Bondi
4 minute readDOT Nominee Duffy Pledges Safety, Faster Infrastructure Spending in Confirmation Hearing
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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