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.
The denial means that the administration will have to first seek review of Judge Tigar’s injunction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Judge John Tigar’s decision echoes his previous emphasis, and that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Judge Jay Bybee relied on the plain meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act in denying the government’s request to stay a temporary restraining order against new limitations on asylum.
The executive branch does not have the authority to categorically deny asylum applications not submitted at recognized points of entry.
While the Supreme Court rejected statutory arguments against Trump’s travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii, the statutory case against the new asylum proclamation is more pointed.
The oral argument suggests at least three possible outcomes.
Tactical context is important in assessing the report of the Military Advocate General of the Israel Defense Force on Operation Protective Edge.