SF Judge Again Blocks Trump's Changes to Asylum Rules
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar against the administration's latest changes to rules governing who is eligible for asylum in the U.S. comes the same day a judge in Washington, D.C. declined a similar bid to block the changes.
July 24, 2019 at 07:32 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday issued a nationwide injunction blocking a Trump Administration rule that barred asylum for migrants who failed to apply for protection in a country they transited through to reach the U.S.—a policy directed at stemming the tide of Central American migrants coming to the country through Mexico.
In a 45-page order issued Wednesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California found that the rule is “is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws” passed by Congress.
In particular, the judge found that the rule runs counter to Congressional moves to ensure that the U.S. only will remove an asylum seeker to a third country if that country would be safe for the applicant and provide equivalent temporary protections.
Here, Tigar wrote the government's own evidence “affirmatively demonstrates that asylum claimants removed to Mexico are likely to be (1) exposed to violence and abuse from third parties and government officials; (2) denied their rights under Mexican and international law, and (3) wrongly returned to countries from which they fled persecution.”
Tigar's decision blocking the new rule runs counter to a decision issued earlier Wednesday by a judge in Washington, D.C., who declined a similar request to block the new rule. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of the District of Columbia issued a bench order Wednesday denying a request for a temporary restraining order from the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, which are represented by a team from Hogan Lovells. Tigar's ruling is a win for lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project, which sued to block the new restrictions shortly after they were announced earlier this month on behalf of advocacy groups East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab and Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles.
“The court recognized, as it did with the first asylum ban, that the Trump administration was attempting an unlawful end run around asylum protections enacted by Congress,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued for the plaintiffs at Wednesday's hearing, in a statement.
At the hearing Wednesday morning in the California case, Tigar stopped the court proceedings briefly when a member of the public hissed after a Justice Department lawyer mentioned Kelly's ruling. Tigar urged the audience member to “respect the dignity of the proceedings” and defended Kelly.
“I'm sure he's given this matter as much thought as I have,” Tigar said. The judge later added: “My point is that these are two district courts both trying to do their best work on an issue of national importance.”
The case marks the second time these plaintiffs and Justice Department lawyers have squared off in Tigar's courtroom over a challenge to Trump's moves to reform the asylum process. Tigar last year blocked the administration's move to limit asylum to only those entering the country through an official port of entry.
Tigar's earlier ruling prompted a public complaint from the president himself, who railed last year about his administration's record in the “Ninth Circuit” before calling Tigar an “Obama judge.” The president's remarks prompted a rare response from Chief Justice John Roberts who issued a statement just before Thanksgiving last year saying, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
The Ninth Circuit upheld Tigar's ruling shortly thereafter in an opinion written by Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, and Roberts joined with the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court in December upholding Tigar in a 5-4 ruling.
Read Judge Tigar's order:
|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 AllPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute read'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal With GOP
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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