The Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction against the third country asylum rule barring 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.
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 Department of Homeland Security 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.”
For asylum seekers at the southern border, the new rule barring asylum for those who have passed through a third country will go into effect in Texas and New Mexico (which are not part of the Ninth Circuit), but not in California and Arizona (which are in the Ninth Circuit).
A federal district court has put a hold on the Trump administration’s newest asylum restrictions on the grounds that they likely clash with existing immigration statutes.
The new rule would bar asylum 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.
A two-judge majority found that the Immigration and Nationality Act grants discretion to keep migrants seeking to enter the United States in Mexico pending a hearing.
The president justified new restrictions on asylum as a response to the recent marked uptick in arrivals at the southern border. But each measure is a blunt instrument that could harm bona fide asylum claimants.