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: