Federal court blocks new Trump administration asylum restrictions from going into effect News
Free-Photos / Pixabay
Federal court blocks new Trump administration asylum restrictions from going into effect

The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted a temporary restraining order Thursday blocking new procedures and limitations for refugees seeking asylum from taking effect.

The rule proposed by the Trump administration adds new bars to eligibility for asylum. It required that convictions modified, vacated, or clarified for rehabilitative purposes or made to reduce immigration related consequences affect asylum eligibility. Definitions of the terms felony and misdemeanor are also provided for the new bars to entry. In addition, it eliminated provisions that allowed for a review of a decision denying asylum, but allowed deportation or removal actions to be withheld.

The plaintiffs, a group of immigration organizations, filed the suit on November 2nd. They alleged that the rules violate Fifth Amendment due process protections, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act(APA).

In the court’s view, “the Rule sweeps too broadly.” The court rejected the defendants argument that the rule is justified for national security.  The court held the new bars to asylum and the additional terms defining felony and misdemeanor violate both the APA and the INA and were beyond the powers of the Attorney General to implement. By failing to provide adequate explanations for the rule and failing to address commentators’ reservations on the impact minor non-violent criminal history would have on asylum eligibility, the actions of the agencies were held to be arbitrary and capricious. The process leading up to the rules was also procedurally flawed as the period allowed to comment was insufficient, there was non-compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Attorney General failed to analyze the impact the rules would have on issues of federalism.

The plaintiffs also proved its clients and operations would be harmed by the rule. The court held a restraining order would serve public interest by requiring agencies to comply with the APA and ensuring statutes enacted by representatives are not usurped by executive directives.

The restraining order will have effect nationally. The defendants have until December 9th to demonstrate why they should not be permanently enjoined from implementing or enforcing the rule.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Accused Nazi war criminal, John Demjanjuk, put on trial in Israel

On February 16, 1987, accused Nazi war criminal, John Demjanjuk, went on trial in Jerusalem, Israel. The prosecution claimed that Demjanjuk was a notorious prison guard known as "Ivan the Terrible" at the Treblinka extermination camp during World War II. On this basis, Demjanjuk was convicted by the Israeli court of crimes against humanity. However, in August 1993, the conviction was overturned by Israel's Supreme Court on a finding of reasonable doubt. After the decision by the Supreme Court of Israel, Demjanjuk was returned to the United States, where he had been moved after World War II. On December 22, 2006, the US Board of Immigration Appeals ordered him deported to Ukraine on a finding that he had been a guard at other Nazi concentration camps.

American anarchist arrested for advocating birth control

On February 16, 1916, feminist and anarchist Emma Goldman was arrested in New York City for advocating birth control. Learn more about Emma Goldman and her defense of reproductive rights from the University of California, Berkeley.