Trump judge smacks Trump down on immigration

[StarfishSaver]

Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim asylum in another country

Under the rule, the U.S. could refuse to consider a request for asylum from anyone who failed to apply for it after leaving home but before reaching the U.S.

A federal court Tuesday night upheld a challenge to the Trump administration's asylum restrictions, specifically a 2019 rule that requires seekers to ask for asylum closer to home.

U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly of Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of immigrant nonprofits and asylum-seekers who argued that the rule known as the "third-country asylum rule," which was jointly published by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Kelly, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Donald Trump in 2017, agreed that in adopting the policy, the administration did not abide by the federal Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which requires that Americans be given enough time and opportunity to weigh in on such rule changes.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge argued, generally allows anyone who has made it to U.S. soil to apply for asylum, with some exceptions, including for those with criminal records.

"There are many circumstances in which courts appropriately defer to the national security judgments of the Executive," Kelly wrote. "But determining the scope of an APA exception is not one of them."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1232629?__twitter_impression=true

[Cha]

1. Wonderful!

You have a typo in your title, though.. "Trump judge snacks Trump down on immigration"

[StarfishSaver]

2. Thanks ... It's late ...

[Cha]

3. YW.. I figured you'd

want to know.

[Princess Turandot]

4. He actually referenced a *tweet from Trump* while refuting one of the defenses they offered...

The APA requirement for a notice and comment period has an exception for situations were the notice might give rise to an even greater problem. DOJ argued that notice of the rule would cause asylum seekers to swarm at the border, jeopardizing life and creating general mayhem. Their evidence was a single WaPo article on a different immigration issue that discussed a hypothetical situation.

From the opinion, footnote 15

For example, according to one article, about a month before the Rule was promulgated, the
President tweeted twice that Guatemala was preparing to sign an agreement that would force
migrants crossing through it to apply for asylum there and block them from seeking asylum
elsewhere, including in the United States. AR at 635. But nothing in the record suggests that
those tweets caused a surge at the southern border.

As FA45 might say, it is a beautiful point!

Similar to the census question case, they seemed to be offering flat-out horsesh*t as their defense, because they didn't have one.