On February 14, 2019, a group of asylum seekers from Central America and several legal organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The plaintiffs challenged the Trump Administration’s new policy of forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico while they await their removal proceedings: the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The plaintiff individual asylum seekers are currently residing in Mexico after having entered the U.S. to request asylum, and then been returned to Mexico under the MPP. The plaintiffs alleged that these asylum seekers are living in fear in Mexico, and that the plaintiff legal organizations are being thwarted from providing representation to such asylum seekers by the physical removal of them from the U.S.
The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, and then reassigned to Judge Richard Seeborg on Feb. 19.
On Feb. 20, 2019 the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin the MPP until a preliminary injunction can be obtained. The plaintiffs alleged that the MPP violate the section of the INA that purportedly authorizes them, violate the U.S.’s duty of non-refoulement (non-return), are arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and violate the APA’s notice and comment requirements. The defendants filed their response on March 1. The judge held a hearing on the motion on March 22. On March 28, 2019 the judge issued an order requesting expedited further briefing on the issue of whether jurisdiction of this case lies exclusively in the District of Columbia.
On April 8, 2019 Judge Seeborg issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. 366 F. Supp. 3d 1110. The judge found that the INA section vesting DHS with the authority in some circumstances to return certain aliens to a contiguous territory (8 USC § 1225(b)(2)(C)) could not be read to apply to the plaintiff asylum seekers or others similarly situated. Additionally, he found that even if that statute could be applied to the plaintiffs, the MPP still need to be enjoined because they fail to sufficiently protect immigrants from being returned to places where their lives or freedom are at risk (in violation of the U.S.'s non-refoulement obligations). Judge Seeborg therefore enjoined the defendants from implementing the MPP nationwide and ordered that the named individual plaintiffs be permitted to enter the U.S.
The defendants appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit and requested a stay of the preliminary injunction pending the appeal. On May 7, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction. 924 F.3d 503. The panel found that the defendants were likely to prevail on the merits of the plaintiffs' INA and APA claims. It stated that the plaintiff asylum seekers were properly subjected to the contiguous-territory provision of the INA, and that the MPP were exempt from the notice-and-comment requirement because they are general statements of policy.
On July 15, 2019, the district court agreed to stay proceedings in the case until the Ninth Circuit appeal was resolved.
On February 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's nationwide injunction of the Migrant Protection Protocols. 2020 WL 964402. The Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their INA claims because the INA's contiguous territory return provision does not apply to bona fide asylum seekers, and that the MPP do not comply with the U.S.'s treaty-based non-refoulement obligations codified in the INA. The Court also found that the nationwide scope of the preliminary injunction, which in practical effect would operate in only the four states along the southern border where the MPP are enforced, was warranted.
However, that same day, the government filed an emergency motion requesting either a stay pending disposition of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, or an immediate administrative stay. The Ninth Circuit granted an administrative stay that evening and requested expedited briefing by the parties addressing the government's request for a longer stay.
On March 4, 2020, the Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the requested stay. 2020 WL 1046241. The Ninth Circuit denied the stay with respect to the merits of its February 28 holding that the MPP violate federal law. However, it issued a stay of the injunction insofar as it operates outside the boundaries of the Ninth Circuit; this stay was set to begin on March 12.
On March 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order halting the Ninth Circuit's injunction of the MPP. Consequently, the MPP remain in effect nationwide.
On April 10, 2020, the government filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
The case is ongoing.
Sam Kulhanek - 06/16/2019
Sam Kulhanek - 04/19/2020
compress summary
