Trump Administration Says Legal Challengers to Asylum Changes 'Lack Standing'
Trump administration lawyers said that organizations who assist asylum seekers could not claim injury over the challenges of adapting to a new policy because "that view of injury would confer standing whenever the law changed."
November 15, 2018 at 08:08 PM
3 minute read
Trump administration lawyers claim that immigration advocacy groups lack standing to sue to block recent changes to asylum policy.
Last week, nonprofit groups sued the Trump administration following a proclamation from President Donald Trump and an interim final rule from acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen barring asylum for people crossing the southern U.S. border outside of designated ports of entry.
In a brief submitted opposing the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, government officials, including Assistant Attorney General Joseph Harold Hunt and U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation assistant director Erez Reuveni, claim that the changes were made lawfully.
Government lawyers said the plaintiffs could not claim injury over the challenges of adapting to a new policy because “that view of injury would confer standing whenever the law changed, converting the courts from a branch that decides cases and controversies to an oversight board reviewing any shift in the law.” They also wrote that claims of injury to nonprofit funding were too speculative.
The government lawyers also stated that while plaintiffs East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles objected to the categorical bar of asylum for certain migrants, “the Executive may create categorical rules barring asylum eligibility and may deny individual aliens asylum based on their unlawful entry.”
The brief also stated the rule “does not turn on an alien's unlawful entry per se, but rather on his decision to enter at a particular place and time in violation of a presidential proclamation” which is within the president's authority.
In the lawsuit filed Nov. 9, plaintiffs, represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Center for Constitutional Rights, said the new restrictions on asylum violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“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,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, in a press release 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.”
The ACLU had no immediate additional comment.
East Bay ECF 27 TRO Opposit… by on Scribd
|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 AllNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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