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:
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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