Current:Home > NewsAppeals court allows Biden administration to keep asylum limits along southern border -CapitalCourse
Appeals court allows Biden administration to keep asylum limits along southern border
View
Date:2025-04-17 00:23:21
Yuma, Arizona — A federal appeals court on Thursday allowed the Biden administration to continue a set of controversial asylum restrictions along the U.S.-Mexico border that officials have said are key to deterring migrants from attempting to enter the country unlawfully.
At the request of the administration, the California-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals suspended a lower court ruling from last month that found the asylum limits to be in violation of the country's legal obligation to those fleeing persecution.
The Biden administration said the July ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar would have triggered a massive spike in the number of migrants crossing into the country illegally from Mexico. That ruling was set to take effect next week, on August 8.
In a 2-1 decision Thursday, a three-judge panel of Ninth Circuit judges paused Tigar's ruling until the appeals court reviews the Biden administration's appeal. The panel gave the parties deadlines in late August and mid-September to file documents in the case.
Circuit judges William Fletcher and Richard Paez, both appointees of former President Bill Clinton, voted to allow the Biden administration to continue enforcing the asylum limits. Circuit judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dissented.
While procedural in nature, Thursday's order is a victory for the Biden administration and its border strategy, which has paired the stricter asylum rules and increased deportations with an unprecedented effort to direct migrants to programs that allow them to enter the U.S. legally and apply for work permits.
The administration credited that strategy with the two-year low in illegal border crossings recorded in June. While unlawful border crossings have not returned to the record levels seen in 2022, they have bounced back in July, according to preliminary Border Patrol data.
"To be clear, we will continue to apply the rule and immigration consequences for those who do not have a lawful basis to remain in the United States," the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Thursday. "The rule has significantly reduced irregular migration, and since its implementation on May 12th we have removed more than 85,000 individuals."
The regulation at the center of the case renders migrants ineligible for asylum if they cross the southern border unlawfully and can't prove they sought legal protection in another country en route to the U.S. Since its implementation in May, the restrictions have been mainly applied to single adult migrants.
Advocates for migrants and some progressive lawmakers have strongly denounced the asylum restrictions, saying they mirror similar, through more restrictive, Trump administration regulations that also penalized migrants who entered the country unlawfully or who failed to seek refuge in other countries first.
"The Biden administration should uphold our asylum laws, which were designed to give people a fair chance to seek safety, not ban them arbitrarily despite their need for protection," said Katrina Eiland, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who filed the lawsuit against the policy.
Eiland noted that Thursday's ruling did not address the legality of the regulation.
"We are pleased the court placed the appeal on an expedited schedule so that it can be decided quickly, because each day the Biden administration prolongs its efforts to preserve its illegal ban, people fleeing grave danger are put in harm's way," Eiland added.
In his dissent, VanDyke said he agreed with the result of the pause, but argued legal precedent required the court to rule against the Biden administration since it struck down two similar asylum restrictions during the Trump administration. He said the Biden rule was not "meaningfully different" than those policies, suggesting that the current administration was being treated differently by his colleagues.
"This new rule looks like the Trump administration's Port of Entry Rule and Transit Rule got together, had a baby, and then dolled it up in a stylish modern outfit, complete with a phone app," VanDyke wrote.
The Biden administration has rejected accusations that its asylum restriction resembles Trump-era policies, noting it has significant exemptions, including for unaccompanied children, migrants fleeing "imminent" harm and those allowed to enter the U.S. under legal migration programs it has created.
Under those programs, the administration has been, on a monthly basis, allowing up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans with American sponsors to fly to the U.S. and processing tens of thousands of additional migrants at ports of entry through a system powered by phone app.
Those who are barred from asylum under the Biden administration rules risk being swiftly deported from the U.S., exiled from the country for 5 years and threatened with criminal prosecution if they cross the border illegally again.
- In:
- Immigration
- Asylum Seekers
Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the immigration reporter at CBS News. Based in Washington, he covers immigration policy and politics.
TwitterveryGood! (86967)
prev:Travis Hunter, the 2
next:Travis Hunter, the 2
Related
- 'Squid Game' without subtitles? Duolingo, Netflix encourage fans to learn Korean
- California governor vetoes magic mushroom and caste discrimination bills
- Stock market today: Asian markets are mixed, oil prices jump and Israel moves to prop up the shekel
- Why Travis Kelce Could Be The 1 for Taylor Swift
- Military service academies see drop in reported sexual assaults after alarming surge
- WNBA Finals Game 1 recap: Las Vegas Aces near title repeat with win over New York Liberty
- NFL in London highlights: Catch up on all the big moments from Jaguars' win over Bills
- U.S. leaders vow support for Israel after deadly Hamas attacks: There is never any justification for terrorism
- What were Tom Selleck's juicy final 'Blue Bloods' words in Reagan family
- Helicopter crashes shortly after takeoff in New Hampshire, killing the pilot
Ranking
- DeepSeek: Did a little known Chinese startup cause a 'Sputnik moment' for AI?
- An Israeli airstrike kills 19 members of the same family in a southern Gaza refugee camp
- Latin group RBD returns after 15-year hiatus with a message: Pop is not dead
- Luxembourg’s coalition under Bettel collapses due to Green losses in tight elections
- Trump issues order to ban transgender troops from serving openly in the military
- Colorado scores dramatic win but Deion Sanders isn't happy. He's 'sick' of team's 'mediocrity.'
- 43 Malaysians were caught in a phone scam operation in Peru and rescued from human traffickers
- She survived being shot at point-blank range. Who wanted Nicki Lenway dead?
Recommendation
Grammy nominee Teddy Swims on love, growth and embracing change
Orioles couldn't muster comeback against Rangers in Game 1 of ALDS
What was the Yom Kippur War? Why Saturday surprise attack on Israel is reminiscent of 1973
The US will send a carrier strike group to the Eastern Mediterranean in support of Israel
What were Tom Selleck's juicy final 'Blue Bloods' words in Reagan family
Georgia officers say suspect tried to run over deputy before he was shot in arm and run off the road
Hamas attack at music festival led to chaos and frantic attempts to escape or hide
An autopsy rules that an Atlanta church deacon’s death during his arrest was a homicide