Trump Asylum Ban
Federal Court Strikes Down
Trump Asylum Ban
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
A Trump-appointed federal district judge in Washington, DC has issued an opinion striking down a Trump Administration rule requiring migrants seeking to enter the United States to first seek asylum in countries they travel through on their way. Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued his order and its accompanying opinion late in the evening on Tuesday. June 30, 2020, concluding that the ban failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governing how agencies should implement rules. The Administration had issued the ban in July of 2019 in an effort to prevent Central American migrants fleeing violence in their countries from seeking asylum in the United States,
The ban that was the subject of the Judge's ruling was promulgated in an interim final rule, published on July 16, 2019, by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, .governing asylum claims in the context of aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States across the southern land border after failing to apply for protection from persecution or torture while in a third country through which they transited en route to the United States. The rule has essentially forced asylum-seeking migrants from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to first seek it from Mexico before seeking asylum in the United States.
Five Recent Court Rulings on Immigration Place the Subject in the Judicial Spotlight
Sunday, June 28, 2020
For nearly two years, immigration stakeholders and policymakers awaited action in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on the legality of the Trump Administration's September 2017 attempt to end the popular Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). As late June of 2020 approached, the pro-immigrant advocacy community braced itself for what it thought would certainly be a decision affirming the Administration's authority to rescind DACA. However, in a totally unexpected decision, on Thursday, June 18, 2020, SCOTUS ruled that the Administration improperly moved to rescind DACA, saving, for now at least, the hundreds of thousands of young people brought to the United States illegally while they were children.
The long-awaited SCOTUS DACA decision was just one of five consequential decisions issued by SCOTUS and lower federal courts on immigration matters in recent days.
Trump Suggests He Will Try Again in the
Coming Days to Rescind DACA
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Click the Play Button, above, to see excerpts from the June 19, 2020 White House press briefing, during which the White House press Secretary responds to questions about DACA.
President Donald J. Trump and members of his Administration on Friday suggested that, notwithstanding a decision against him by the Supreme Court of the United States (the Court), his Administration will soon make another attempt to rescind a popular program that has protected as many as 800,000 young persons who have lived in the United States most of their lives after being brought illegally to the country as children. The President implied that he would soon act to bring the program to an end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) via a series of posts on Twitter, a widely used microblogging platform, and his suggestion was reinforced later in the day by the White House Press Secretary.
Supreme Court Rules that Trump Improperly Attempted to Rescind the DACA Program,
Allowing it to Continue in Effect For Now
Thursday, June 18, 2020
The Administration has the option of trying again right away to bring the program to an end, waiting until after the election to do so, or permitting the program to continue in place for the remainder of the Trump presidency.
Joining the Chief Justice in the 5-4 decision were the four Court liberals, Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elana Kagan.
In the ruling, Roberts wrote that the Administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it attempted to rescind the program, saying that it did not properly weigh how ending the program would affect those who had come to rely on its protections against deportation, and the ability to work legally. He wrote in his opinion that the Administration had not "complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”
This Week in Immigration Staff