US federal appeals court hears arguments over Biden administration asylum policy News
CBP Photography, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
US federal appeals court hears arguments over Biden administration asylum policy

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments Tuesday over President Joe Biden’s asylum policy that adds restrictions to migrants seeking asylum. The Biden policy presumes that migrants who do not use legal pathways to enter the US are ineligible for asylum. The court previously allowed the policy to remain in place after a federal court in California struck it down.

A three-judge panel heard arguments from both sides of the dispute, starting with the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ began its argument by asserting that the plaintiff organizations challenging the policy do not have a “legally cognizable interest” in the dispute because they only suffer a financial impact from the law. The plaintiffs refuted this argument and noted that neither the district court nor the Ninth Circuit had dismissed the case for lack of standing.

Turning to the merits of the claim, the DOJ asserted that the Biden policy is differentiable from a prior immigration policy under former President Donald Trump’s administration. The DOJ noted that the Biden policy seeks to improve border efficiency rather than weed out asylum applications. Additionally, the DOJ contrasted the policies by noting that the Biden policy has “robust” exceptions that the Trump policy did not have. One of these exceptions is for asylum appointments made through the CBP One Mobile Application. Asylum applicants who use the application avoid the rebuttable presumption of illegality that the policy creates.

The plaintiffs argued that the Biden policy is illegal because it makes the “overwhelming majority” of asylum seekers only eligible if they enter at a port of entry. The plaintiffs assert that the government is not permitted to consider the manner of entry regarding asylum seekers under federal law. Lastly, the plaintiffs noted that the government has plenty of other options to accelerate asylum adjudication that do not involve “slashing the asylum system.”

This is not the only lawsuit the Biden administration faces over the southern border. On October 30, a federal judge in Texas granted a temporary restraining order to the state of Texas and enjoined the federal government from interfering with Texas’s fencing at the U.S.-Mexico border.

THIS DAY @ LAW

Congress passed legislation establishing post-WWII national security structure

On July 25, 1947, the National Security Act of 1947 was passed, establishing a linkage between the military and national security, and setting up the National Security Council (NSC), the CIA, the Department of Defense, and several other new agencies, including the National Military Establishment with three separate departments (the Army, the Navy and the new US Air Force), and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Learn more about the National Security Act of 1947.

Brunswick Manifesto proclaimed

On July 25, 1792, the Brunswick Manifesto was proclaimed by Charles William Ferdinand, the Duke of Brunswick during the French Revolutionary Wars. As leader of the forces allied against France, Ferdinand promised retribution against the citizens of Paris if the French Royal Family was harmed. Instead, the Manifesto further inflamed anti-royal sentiment in Paris.