The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down two rulings on Friday that struck at the heart of the Trump Administration’s hardline immigration policies.
In one case, the court examined a rule implemented last July, which had sweeping consequences for refugees. That rule prohibited people from requesting asylum if they crossed into the United States along the southern border of Mexico between designated ports of entry. Following the administration’s announcement, a federal court for the Northern District of California then blocked the asylum ban — by issuing a nationwide injunction.
The Ninth Circuit ruled to uphold the lower court’s injunction, effectively halting the rule’s implementation entirely. Notably, that particular aspect of immigration litigation is precisely what fueled Donald Trump‘s attacks on the federal judiciary.
Today’s 9th Cir. decision affirming the injunction of the rule that asylum seekers have to present at ports of entry is the same case in which Trump complained about “Obama judges” and Chief Justice Roberts snapped back and then cast the deciding vote to keep the policy on hold.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 28, 2020
The Ninth Circuit also reviewed an injunction against the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP); under MPP, refugees and asylum-seekers are deprived due process and access to counsel, and must remain in Mexico indefinitely while their asylum applications are processed. The program, often called “Remain in Mexico,” is another pillar of the Trump hard-line immigration initiatives.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg issued a preliminary inunction against MPP last April, specifically on the basis that the MPP may conflict with Administrative Procedure Act. The Ninth Circuit ruled Friday, however, that asylum seekers must be allowed into the United States while their cases make their way through American immigration courts – a process that can take months or even years.
The court ruled that the program “directly affects immigration into this country along our southern border,” and upheld the district court’s injunction on that basis, calling the administration’s position “exactly backwards.”
BREAKING: victory in 9th circuit on our challenge to Trump’s remain in Mexico policy!
Favorite line: “The Government had it exactly backwards.”
Congrats to @ACLU @ThinkLawLab @AlOtroLado_Org and other partners. pic.twitter.com/nm3Ok6bdYO
— Cecillia Wang (@WangCecillia) February 28, 2020
Because both rulings function simply to uphold preliminary injunctions, there is still additional potential for appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as further litigation on the underlying merits of the cases.
These are both very big rulings, but it needs to be said that the MPP ruling will likely provoke a stay application from the government to #SCOTUS to allow that policy to go back into effect.
(#SCOTUS denied a stay of the Asylum Ban I injunction by a 5-4 vote in December 2018.) https://t.co/pzOoLP1HnV
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 28, 2020
The Ninth Circuit’s rulings indicate, however, that the court believes there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying challenges to the rules, which does not bode well for the Trump administration.
[Image via Win McNamee/Getty Images]
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow Law&Crime:
