ACLU Sues Trump Administration Over Asylum Restrictions
Attorneys for the plaintiffs say the administration's move is a “direct violation of Congress's clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar.”
November 09, 2018 at 03:16 PM
3 minute read
A federal lawsuit targeting the Trump administration's latest moves on asylum seekers was filed in San Francisco federal court Friday afternoon, claiming their new restriction violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit comes after acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen issued an interim final rule Thursday barring asylum for people who cross through the southern border outside designated ports of entry. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Friday to that effect.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Constitutional Rights, who represent the plaintiffs in the suit, are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
➤➤ Keep up with Trump's legal team and the latest maneuvers in the Mueller investigation. Sign up for Trump Watch from Law.com.
In their complaint filed at the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, attorneys say the administration's move is a “direct violation of Congress's clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar.”
They also contend the rule violated the APA because agency heads “promulgated the rule without the required procedural steps and without good cause for immediately putting the rule into effect.” The APA normally requires agencies to undergo a period of public notice and comment for proposed rule changes.
The plaintiffs suing the Trump administration are the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles, all nonprofit groups that provide aid for asylum seekers.
“President Trump's new asylum ban is illegal. Neither the president nor his cabinet secretaries can override the clear commands of U.S. law, but that's exactly what they're trying to do,” Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said Friday.
“This action undermines the rule of law and is a great moral failure because it tries to take away protections from individuals facing persecution. It's the opposite of what America should stand for,” he said.
The Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.
The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security in a statement defended the administration's restriction as a “lawful order.”
“Under the laws of this country, the President has the right to suspend the entry of aliens if he determines it to be in the national interest—and that is what President Trump has done,” they said. They added: “We should not have to go to court to defend the President's clear legal authority or our rights as a sovereign nation, but we will not hesitate to do so. We are confident that the rule of law will prevail.”
Read the complaint:
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 AllCleary Nabs Public Company Advisory Practice Head From Orrick in San Francisco
Morgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
Trending Stories
- 1Courts Demonstrate Growing Willingness to Sanction Courtroom Misuse of AI
- 2The New Rules of AI: Part 1—Managing Risk
- 3Change Is Coming to the EEOC—But Not Overnight
- 4Med Mal Defense Win Stands as State Appeals Court Rejects Arguments Over Blocked Cross-Examination
- 5Rejecting 'Blind Adherence to Outdated Precedent,’ US Judge Goes His Own Way on Attorney Fees
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