On November 20, 2018, a group of asylum seekers challenged the federal government's latest asylum policy prohibiting people who enter the U.S. along the southern border somewhere other than a designated port of entry from obtaining asylum. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged an interim final rule promulgated on Nov. 9, 2018 declaring all those subject to a presidential proclamation concerning the southern border ineligible for asylum, as well as the “Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States” signed the same day blocking the entry of all people entering the U.S. without inspection at the southern border. The plaintiffs claimed violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and assigned to Magistrate Judge Randolph D. Moss.
The plaintiffs were six noncitizens who entered the U.S. and sought asylum. Two were a father and daughter who fled Honduras to escape a gang threatening to kill them, fearing the local police would not be willing to protect them. Another fled from Mexico, seeking safety from her gang-affiliated partner who repeatedly beat her and threatened to kill her. A fourth plaintiff was an unaccompanied minor from Honduras who sought to escape a credible fear of murder from his father - a police officer who abused him - as well as from a gang the plaintiff refused to join on moral grounds. Another two plaintiffs were a mother and her son from Honduras seeking asylum to escape the violence and threat of death posed by her husband. None had been granted asylum.
The plaintiffs argued that federal law allowed non-citizens to seek asylum regardless of their immigration status or how they entered the U.S. Further, federal law established procedural safeguards required during removal proceedings that aimed to give asylum seekers a fair review process. The plaintiffs also argued that under treaty obligations, the U.S. could not deny asylum on the basis of where the noncitizen entered the U.S. But the government's new rule, part of its broader "zero-tolerance" policy on immigration, "shutters access to the asylum system for thousands of men, women, and children that the Administration concedes are likely to have meritorious asylum claims." Faced with even longer wait times at the border, the complaint argued, asylum seekers already in dangerous situations and with scarce financial resources were thus left seriously vulnerable to violence from criminal organizations near the border.
At the same time the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), to be followed by a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation and enforcement of the rule and proclamation.
Meanwhile, a series of parties filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. The following entities filed briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs: the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and seven U.S. Senators.
On December 17, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction and consolidated the case with
S.M.S.R. v. Trump, designating this case as the lead case. On December 21, the court decided to hold the motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction in abeyance.
On December 18, the plaintiffs from S.M.S.R. v. Trump filed an amended complaint listing seven additional asylum seekers as lead plaintiffs. At the same time, the plaintiffs in this case also filed an amended complaint seeking certification of a class consisting of all persons who have crossed the southern border since November 10, 2018, and have either gone into hiding to avoid detection, presented outside a port of entry and been detained, or presented and been released pending further immigration proceedings.
On December 26, the defendants filed a motion to stay all briefing deadlines in light of the lapse in appropriations to the Department of Justice. The court, however, denied this motion.
On January 4, 2019, the plaintiffs in both cases filed motions for summary judgment and class certification. The defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment on February 25. Oral argument on these pending motions is scheduled for May 29, 2019.
The case is ongoing.
Virginia Weeks - 11/28/2018
Eva Richardson - 05/22/2019
compress summary
