Trump's Attempt To Limit Asylum Struck Down By Judge

in the courts. The latest a DC judge has struck down Trump's attempt last year to limit asylum only to people who cross into the US at official entry points along the southern border. Joining me is Leon Fresco, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation and a partner at Hollanden Night. Leon tell us about the latest ruling and the basis for it. So, the latest ruling is one of two rulings that have happened. One

was in California, now one is in DC. On an earlier Trump administration policy which said that anybody who crossed border illegally would be unable to apply for asylum, the idea being that you'd have to wait at the port of entry, but you couldn't literally just cross one step

over the Rio grand and ask for asylum. And so the Trump administration that issued a proclamation like the travel band that said you would be banned if you be from applying for asylum if you crossed illegally, and they tried to say, well, this is a new factor that then denies all asylum place allows us to expeditedly remove people.

And the court said, no, discontradicts the statute because the statue literally says that you can apply for asylum or regardless of whether you rise or did not arise at

a port of jury. So they looked at this as a clear cut, simple case of a Trump administration order contravening a statue, and in both judges ruled the same way, Yes, if this instant in this case about crossing illegally, both the court in the East Bay sanctuary case, which is in California, and the court in the d C District Court both ruled that it was illegal to say that simply the act of crossing the border illegally made one

ineligible for asylum. There's a different set of cases that also have one in d C and one in California, that have to do with a new rule that the Trump administration tries to put in which said that you have a duty to apply for asylum in any country you've crossed through first, and if you don't do that, then you can't apply for asylum in the United States. And they're The DC Court said it's fine, but the California Court said that's illegal too, and has enjoyed that

on a national basis from operating. So there's two different bars that the Trump administration is trying to to bar people based on asylum. One if you cross illegally, and another one is if you don't ask for asylum in every country you're crossing through before coming to the US. And so far neither of those has been allowed to

be maintained yet in the United States. But the Washington d c. Federal judge did deny the request to put the newer rule on temporary whole, but then he was over not overturned, but the San Francisco judge then issued a nationwide injunction, which sort of which eliminates the ruling of the DC judge. And this sort of brings up those nationwide injunctions and what many people consider the problems

with them. Correct, it's a bit of an odd procedural formulation which is you only have to get one judge to agree to enjoin a policy nationwide, even if a hundred other judges refused to enjoin it in order to be successful, which is why the plaints have filed lawsuit them l A. San Francisco, Seattle, DC, etcetera, is to try to find that district judge who will then answer the temporary injunction, which in this case was done in California, and then the question we in San Francisco, And so

then the question will be, okay, well, what will the Ninth Circuit do versus what will the DC Circuit do? And ultimately then what will the Supreme Court do? And will they say that a person seeking asylum as a duty to apply in every country that they crossed before coming in to the United States. Is such a limitation

legal or not? And in the meantime, to make things even more complicated, is now, because President Trump was able to get what we think art to still know, a safe third country agreement with Guatemala, then that's the third layer of complexity here is, well, will everyone other than Watemalans and Mexicans be banned from getting asylum in the United States? Because now that's a third band, which is that you have to apply in Guatemala. And so all of these are all working their way up through the

courts of the same side. It's this situation sort of reminds me of the travel band situation, where you had different orders and judges in different places across the US, and then eventually, I mean, the only true decisive moment is when the Supreme Court decides. Will this end up

that way? Yes? Correct? I think the Supreme Court is going to end up probably consolidating and grappling with all three of these bands on asylum, the ban on asylum for illegal entrance, the ban on asylum for people who didn't apply in every country they crossed, and the ban of asylum on people who didn't apply in Guatemala. So probably combined all three of these and decide what was

legal and what was not legal. Unless the Trump administration just wants to say, Okay, we're gonna give up on the first two and just think with this gatemaland issue, because assuming they actually got a say, third country agreement with the Gatemala, that's actually their best chance at restricting asylum because that's one that Congress actually lets them do.

Congress literally wrote in if you have a safe third country agreement with the country, then you can restrict asylum unless somebody applies in that country, and so that may be their best chance. But then even in that case, there's gonna be debates about whether Guatemala actually meets the

criteria of a say third country. Let me ask you this, leon, instead of imposing new rules, could the Trump administration just raise the bar for initial asylum in this country, raise the bar about you know who, they'll allow to wait in the country until their asylum claim is litigated. Well, they tried to do that, and that was one of the reasons that France assists of the U s c i S director was fired. And why can't Couchinelli is

currently under a lot of scrutiny in the news. Is there is this initial factor called credible fear, which is you have to show you have a credible fear in order to stay in the eligibility cycle forgetting asylum. And so the president and his advisors were very upset that under Francisista, the credible fear screening rate was at about eighty to nine success rate and it has gone down

with with with new director. Can Cucinelli. But the problem is the the the the even there, there's going to be claims that will be filed very soon that will say we'll wait a second. The legal standard didn't change and the claims that are being made are essentially identical. So why did this go down? Are you forcing your

adjudicators to violate the law. There's even adjudicators in the Asylum Officers Union that are raising complaints about this that they feel that they're being forced to deny claims contrary to law. Well, I need to map all these cases out because it's getting very confusing at this point. Thanks so much, Leon for keeping it straight. That's Leon Presco, a partner at hollanden Night. Thanks for listening to the

Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg