SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As seen through fencing, migrants--including a young child--stand while being detained by Department of Homeland Security police after crossing to the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border barrier, on June 27, 2019 in El Paso, Texas. (Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Removing 'Unjust Barrier' to Asylum, Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Rule Forcing Refugees to Seek Safety Elsewhere
The ruling reaffirmed "that for the last 244 years we have been, and will continue to be, a country ruled by law, not men," said Human Rights First.
Jul 01, 2020
Immigrant rights advocates applauded a Trump-appointed federal judge's rebuke to the White House on Wednesday as the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. blocked the administration's anti-asylum rule targeting Central Americans.
Judge Timothy J. Kelly on Tuesday evening ruled against President Donald Trump's "third-country requirement," which was imposed last summer and required asylum seekers to first apply for humanitarian aid in other countries they travel through before reaching the southern U.S. border.
"By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles. The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims."
--Claudia Cubas, CAIR Coalition
The administration failed to provide justification for the rule or to explain how it was in the public interest when it bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act and introduced the restriction, Kelly said.
Additionally, the judge criticized the administration for using as its reasoning for the rule a single Washington Post article from October 2018. The article suggested that more asylum-seekers arrived at the border with children after the president signed an executive order ending his policy of separating families in June 2018.
"This newspaper article alone does not provide good cause to bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures for the reasons cited by Defendants," wrote Kelly. "The article lacks any data suggesting that the number of asylum seekers increased at all during this time--only that more asylum seekers brought children with them."
The legal advocacy group RAICES, which along with Human Rights First and the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights (CAIR) Coalition represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling a "huge win" for refugees.
"By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles," said Claudia Cubas, litigation director at CAIR Coalition. "The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims. For many of the individual asylum seekers we fight alongside, this ruling removes an unjust barrier to security."
Kelly further ruled against the Trump administration's request for a stay on the rule pending an expected appeal from the federal government, saying he saw "no reason" to grant the request.
Kelly's decision represented a final judgement against the administration's policy, the judge said, unlike an earlier ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar. Tigar last September imposed a preliminary injunction on the rule, citing a "mountain" of evidence that refugees cannot safely seek asylum in Mexico. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowed the administration to move forward with enforcing the restriction after that ruling was handed down.
"Judge Kelly's ruling is proof that the administration cannot do an end-run around the law," said Hardy Vieux, a senior vice president at Human Rights First. "We do not follow the rule of one capricious man, who treats the law as something on which to trample, on his way to a photo op. We are gratified that the judiciary again reaffirms that for the last 244 years we have been, and will continue to be, a country ruled by law, not men."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Immigrant rights advocates applauded a Trump-appointed federal judge's rebuke to the White House on Wednesday as the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. blocked the administration's anti-asylum rule targeting Central Americans.
Judge Timothy J. Kelly on Tuesday evening ruled against President Donald Trump's "third-country requirement," which was imposed last summer and required asylum seekers to first apply for humanitarian aid in other countries they travel through before reaching the southern U.S. border.
"By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles. The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims."
--Claudia Cubas, CAIR Coalition
The administration failed to provide justification for the rule or to explain how it was in the public interest when it bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act and introduced the restriction, Kelly said.
Additionally, the judge criticized the administration for using as its reasoning for the rule a single Washington Post article from October 2018. The article suggested that more asylum-seekers arrived at the border with children after the president signed an executive order ending his policy of separating families in June 2018.
"This newspaper article alone does not provide good cause to bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures for the reasons cited by Defendants," wrote Kelly. "The article lacks any data suggesting that the number of asylum seekers increased at all during this time--only that more asylum seekers brought children with them."
The legal advocacy group RAICES, which along with Human Rights First and the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights (CAIR) Coalition represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling a "huge win" for refugees.
"By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles," said Claudia Cubas, litigation director at CAIR Coalition. "The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims. For many of the individual asylum seekers we fight alongside, this ruling removes an unjust barrier to security."
Kelly further ruled against the Trump administration's request for a stay on the rule pending an expected appeal from the federal government, saying he saw "no reason" to grant the request.
Kelly's decision represented a final judgement against the administration's policy, the judge said, unlike an earlier ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar. Tigar last September imposed a preliminary injunction on the rule, citing a "mountain" of evidence that refugees cannot safely seek asylum in Mexico. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowed the administration to move forward with enforcing the restriction after that ruling was handed down.
"Judge Kelly's ruling is proof that the administration cannot do an end-run around the law," said Hardy Vieux, a senior vice president at Human Rights First. "We do not follow the rule of one capricious man, who treats the law as something on which to trample, on his way to a photo op. We are gratified that the judiciary again reaffirms that for the last 244 years we have been, and will continue to be, a country ruled by law, not men."
Immigrant rights advocates applauded a Trump-appointed federal judge's rebuke to the White House on Wednesday as the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. blocked the administration's anti-asylum rule targeting Central Americans.
Judge Timothy J. Kelly on Tuesday evening ruled against President Donald Trump's "third-country requirement," which was imposed last summer and required asylum seekers to first apply for humanitarian aid in other countries they travel through before reaching the southern U.S. border.
"By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles. The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims."
--Claudia Cubas, CAIR Coalition
The administration failed to provide justification for the rule or to explain how it was in the public interest when it bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act and introduced the restriction, Kelly said.
Additionally, the judge criticized the administration for using as its reasoning for the rule a single Washington Post article from October 2018. The article suggested that more asylum-seekers arrived at the border with children after the president signed an executive order ending his policy of separating families in June 2018.
"This newspaper article alone does not provide good cause to bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures for the reasons cited by Defendants," wrote Kelly. "The article lacks any data suggesting that the number of asylum seekers increased at all during this time--only that more asylum seekers brought children with them."
The legal advocacy group RAICES, which along with Human Rights First and the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights (CAIR) Coalition represented the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling a "huge win" for refugees.
"By striking down this rule, Judge Kelly reaffirmed two fundamental principles," said Claudia Cubas, litigation director at CAIR Coalition. "The protection of asylum seekers fleeing for safety is intertwined with our national values and that the United States is a country where the rule of law cannot be tossed aside for political whims. For many of the individual asylum seekers we fight alongside, this ruling removes an unjust barrier to security."
Kelly further ruled against the Trump administration's request for a stay on the rule pending an expected appeal from the federal government, saying he saw "no reason" to grant the request.
Kelly's decision represented a final judgement against the administration's policy, the judge said, unlike an earlier ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar. Tigar last September imposed a preliminary injunction on the rule, citing a "mountain" of evidence that refugees cannot safely seek asylum in Mexico. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowed the administration to move forward with enforcing the restriction after that ruling was handed down.
"Judge Kelly's ruling is proof that the administration cannot do an end-run around the law," said Hardy Vieux, a senior vice president at Human Rights First. "We do not follow the rule of one capricious man, who treats the law as something on which to trample, on his way to a photo op. We are gratified that the judiciary again reaffirms that for the last 244 years we have been, and will continue to be, a country ruled by law, not men."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.