The Trump administration has made many changes to immigration policy here in the United States. However, San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar ruled that the administration’s fast-track ban on asylum seekers who pass through other countries without applying for asylum was not legal.
Critics call the Obama-appointed Tigar an activist judge because this is the second time he has restored the nationwide injunction. He also blocked the administration’s attempt only to accept asylum seekers who go through ports of entry.
The judge initially ruled in this case, making it a national injunction, but U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled to narrow the earlier injunction, allowing it the policy to be implemented in Texas and New Mexico but not Arizona and California where the judge’s 9th District has jurisdiction. Judge Tigar reviewed the case and re-imposed the national scope of the ruling.
Why is there disagreement?
The judge examined the case and deemed that:
- The policy contradicts the national asylum law currently instituted.
- It is the only way to maintain a uniform immigration policy.
- Bifurcated policy would add undue complexity to addressing and enforcing the policy.
Request for the Supreme Court to take the case
Critics point out that nationwide injunctions are supposed to be done in extraordinary circumstances and not an automatic resort when there is a policy that the judge disagrees with. Nevertheless, The Supreme Court has so far refused to take on the case. Of course, as with all immigration issues and this administration, this is not the end of its attempt to impose its will on constitutional law. Those with questions about this policy can get the most up to date information from a knowledgeable immigration law attorney.
