U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM

This story has been updated to incorporate both decisions issued Friday by the Ninth Circuit panel. An earlier version only addressed East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Donald Trump.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld a pair of injunctions barring Trump administration rule changes affecting asylum seekers.

The Ninth Circuit rulings block both changes that would restrict migrants entering outside designated ports of entry along the U.S. via the Mexico border from applying for asylum and those that would force non-Mexican asylum seekers arriving at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their asylum applications are pending.

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel Friday upheld a ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California, who in 2018 issued an injunction preventing the port of entry rule from going into effect, finding that it "was inconsistent with the will of Congress as expressed in the United States' immigration statutes."

Writing for the panel, Judge Richard Paez of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that the Immigration and Nationality Act states that a migrant who arrives in the U.S. "whether or not at a designated port of arrival" can apply for asylum. Paez, who was joined in the opinion by Judge William Fletcher, quoted from Tigar's injunction decision in noting that there is an important "need for uniformity in immigration policy" in supporting the nationwide scope of the ruling. Paez noted that the plaintiffs, migrant advocates who represent asylum seekers, do not limit their potential clients to those arriving along the Ninth Circuit's California-Arizona border with Mexico.

"An injunction that, for example, limits the application of the Rule to California, would not address the harm that one of the Organizations suffers from losing clients entering through the Texas-Mexico border," Paez wrote. "One fewer asylum client, regardless of where the client entered the United States, results in a frustration of purpose (by preventing the organization from continuing to aid asylum applicants who seek relief), and a loss of funding (by decreasing the money it receives for completed cases)," he added.

The third member of the panel, Judge Ferdinand Fernandez of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, concurred in the result but held that the court was bound by an earlier published Ninth Circuit decision in the case denying the government's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. "The scope of the injunction is not overly broad," Fernandez wrote.

A Department of Justice spokesperson said today's decision highlights the consequences and impropriety of nationwide injunctions. "The Trump Administration has acted faithfully to implement a statutory authority provided by Congress over two decades ago and signed into law by President Clinton,"  the spokesperson said. "The Ninth Circuit's decision not only ignores the Constitutional authority of Congress and the Administration for a policy in effect for over a year, but also extends relief beyond the parties before the Court."

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, said in an email statement, "Once again the courts have recognized there is tremendous danger facing asylum seekers along the entire southern border, and that the administration cannot unilaterally rewrite the laws."

In the case related to non-Mexican asylum seekers arriving at the border, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California last year blocked the Trump administration's "Migrant Protection Protocols," finding that policies were not authorized by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and even had they been, they didn't meet the government's obligation to avoid returning any alien to a territory where his or her "life or freedom would be threatened."

In upholding Seeborg's injunction, Fletcher wrote that it was a "misnomer" to refer to it as a "nationwide injunction" since protocols only apply at the four states along the Southern border⁠—California and Arizona in the Ninth Circuit, New Mexico in the Tenth, and Texas in the Fifth. "In practical effect, the district court's injunction, while setting aside the MPP in its entirety, does not operate nationwide," Fletcher wrote. The judge further noted that immigration cases present a "particularly strong claim for uniform relief."

Fernandez, in the MPP case, dissented from the opinion finding that the panel was bound by an earlier Ninth Circuit decision granting the government's request for a stay just prior to when Seeborg's injunction was initially set to go into effect.