Court temporarily halts ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy
SAN DIEGO — Dealing a significant blow to a signature Trump administration immigration policy, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that the government can no longer make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico while their cases wind through the U.S. immigration courts.
The same court, based in San Francisco, decided to keep another major change on hold, one that denies asylum to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally from Mexico.
The twin setbacks for the Trump administration may prove temporary if it appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has consistently sided with the president on immigration and border security policies.
The “Remain in Mexico” policy, known officially as “Migrant Protection Protocols,” took effect in January of last year in San Diego and gradually spread across the border.
Nearly 60,000 people have been sent back to wait for hearings, and officials believe it is a big reason why illegal border crossings plummeted about 80% from a 13-year high in May.
Reaction to the decision was swift among immigration lawyers and advocates who have spent months fighting with the administration over a program they see as a humanitarian disaster, subjecting hundreds of migrants to violence, kidnapping and extortion in dangerous Mexican border cities.
Hundreds more have been living in squalid encampments just across the border, as they wait for their next court date.
Advocates planned to have immigrants immediately cross the border and present the court decision to border authorities Friday. Lawyers were hoping to get their clients before U.S. immigration court judges.
In the decision, the judges acknowledged the controversy that has engulfed federal courtrooms over the issue of nationwide injunctions in recent weeks.
The Trump administration has been widely critical of nationwide injunctions, saying a few “liberal” areas should not be making policy for the entire country.
A divided court declared the policy invalid but acknowledged California and Arizona are the only border states in its jurisdiction. Texas and New Mexico are outside its jurisdiction.
Judge William Fletcher, writing the majority opinion, sided with the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups who argued the policy violates international treaty obligations against sending people back to a country where they are likely to be persecuted or tortured on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs or membership in a particular social group.
The question before the judges was whether to let the policies take effect during legal challenges.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to request for comment.