The decision highlighted key tensions between the ban on uninsured immigrants and existing law.
Peter Margulies is a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, where he teaches Immigration Law, National Security Law and Professional Responsibility. He is the author of Law’s Detour: Justice Displaced in the Bush Administration (New York: NYU Press, 2010).
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
On Oct. 4, President Trump issued a proclamation that bars otherwise qualified visa applicants from entry into the United States unless they are likely to obtain “approved health insurance” within 30 days of entry.
On Sept. 11, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction imposed by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the third country asylum rule recently issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule would bar foreign nationals who cross the U.S.-Mexico border from receipt of U.S. asylum when they transit through a third country without applying for protection in that country.
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued its final rule on custody of two groups of noncitizen children, establishing different procedures for the treatment of children accompanied by at least one parent at the border prior to arrest and “unaccompanied alien children” (UACs) who crossed the border and were arrested without a parent.
In a decision with benefits for both the government and the plaintiffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a partial stay on Aug.
Editor's note: This post has been updated to address the Guatemala Safe Third Country Agreement that United States and Guatemalan officials announced on Friday, July 26.
On July 15, the Department of Homeland Security posted an interim final rule (IFR) that limits asylum by barring applications from claimants at the southern border who passed through a third country on their way to the United States but did not seek asylum in that country.