Judge in Oakland Reinstates Nationwide Halt to Trump's Asylum Restrictions

A federal judge in Oakland has reinstated his nationwide halt to a Trump administration policy that effectively eliminates asylum protections for thousands of Central Americans who travel through Mexico each month and seek refuge in the U.S.

In a ruling issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said blocking the asylum restrictions across the country was the only way to provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs: four California-based organizations that offer legal aid and other services to asylum-seekers in various states.

Under the administration’s rule, which took effect July 16, immigrants are ineligible for asylum if they crossed another country en route to the U.S. without seeking protections there first.

Tigar said the plaintiff groups, which claimed significant costs under the new policy, had already established a “sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm.”

“The question now before the Court is whether those harms can be addressed by any relief short of nationwide injunction. The answer is that they cannot,” wrote Tigar in his ruling.

Tigar’s decision means migrants arriving anywhere along the southern border will now be eligible to apply for asylum as intended by Congress’ U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, said Michael Smith, who directs the refugee rights program at the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant in Berkeley, a plaintiff organization.

“The law says they are eligible to apply no matter how they got here,” said Smith. “So the law is clearly on our side. But this administration is going to fight against asylum on all fronts.”

The White House slammed Tigar's ruling in a statement.

"Immigration and border security policy cannot be run by any single district court judge who decides to issue a nationwide injunction. This ruling is a gift to human smugglers and traffickers and undermines the rule of law," read the statement from the Press Secretary.

The Trump administration is expected to request the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review Tigar’s decision. That court had limited a previous nationwide injunction Tigar ordered July 24 to temporarily block the so-called “third country rule” while it is challenged in court.

Last month, the appellate judges declined the federal government’s request to dissolve the ban completely, but they restricted it to the nine western states within the appeals court’s jurisdiction, reasoning the judge hadn’t shown enough evidence to support a nationwide halt. That meant the new asylum restrictions were applying to migrants who crossed the border into Texas and New Mexico, but not into California and Arizona.

The three judge panel at the appeals court also ruled that Tigar retained jurisdiction to “further develop the record” to support extending the suspension to the rest of the country. That opened the door for plaintiff organizations to ask Tiger to consider additional evidence and restore the nationwide injunction on the third country rule.

Tigar’s ruling Monday built a fuller case for the injunction. It comes as the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court last month to intervene and allow it to fully implement the third country rule.

At a hearing last week in Tigar’s courtroom in Oakland, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab, and Central American Resource Center of Los Angeles said the partial injunction doesn’t make sense because they often represent asylum seekers outside the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, or represent people who came to California after entering the country through Texas and New Mexico. The organizations also claimed they’ll bear significant costs and workload from having to operate under a patchwork of asylum restrictions across the U.S.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Scott Stewart argued that additional evidence submitted by plaintiffs failed to show that the third country rule must be halted nationwide.

“They are essentially repackaging arguments they already made,” said Stewart. “We knew their operations were nationwide and the 9th Circuit still deemed the record insufficient.”

Stewart also argued that the appellate judges did not grant Tigar the authority to fully block the asylum restrictions once again. But Tigar seemed unconvinced.

“What would be the purpose of developing the record on a nationwide injunction if I didn’t have authority to issue one?” he asked Stewart.

Government officials argue the third country policy is needed to reduce the influx of Central American migrants seeking asylum protections at the southern border, which the administration says has overwhelmed the country’s immigration system.

“This interim rule will help reduce a major 'pull' factor driving irregular migration to the United States,” said Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan, announcing the third country rule on July 15.

Under American law, people can request asylum when they arrive in the U.S. regardless of how they enter. The law makes an exception for those who have come through a country considered to be "safe," pursuant to an agreement between the U.S. and that country.

Canada and the U.S. have a "safe third country" agreement. But the U.S. doesn't have one with Mexico. The Trump administration announced an agreement this summer with Guatemala, but the country's incoming president said last month that Guatemala would not be able to uphold the deal reached by his predecessor.

The administration maintains that “loopholes” in current laws allow migrants to ask for asylum, whether or not they have legitimate claims, and then be released into the U.S. while their cases are decided by an immigration judge, which can take years.

Between 2017 and 2018, asylum applications increased by nearly 70%, according to government figures.

The majority of migrants apprehended by U.S. authorities at the southern border are Central American families and children. Many say they are fleeing extreme violence and that their governments fail to protect them.

The Trump administration rule includes exceptions for people who were denied protection claims elsewhere or were victims of human trafficking. But immigrant advocates argue that the policy shatters asylum protections established by Congress four decades ago.

“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” said Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney representing the plaintiffs. “This rule we're talking about effectively would end asylum at the southern border for everyone except Mexicans who don't have to transit through a third country. So we believe that it's clearly unlawful.”