Florida residents are likely aware that President Donald Trump’s immigration policies have sparked fierce debate in the nation’s capital and contentious legal battles in its federal courts. One of the president’s most sweeping moves was a rule announced on July 15 that all but eliminated asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border by requiring asylum seekers to submit their petitions in the first safe country they enter.
The rule prompted a swift challenge in the courts from a coalition of civil rights groups spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union. In July, a district judge in California issued an injunction that prevented the rule’s implementation. However, the administration won a minor victory in August when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit limited the scope of the injunction to the nine states where the issuing court holds jurisdiction. This ruling allowed the controversial rule to remain in place in Texas and New Mexico.
The White House may have been spurred by this decision as the Solicitor General has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the injunction while the case is being litigated. The request was made on Aug. 26. According to the administration, the injunction interferes with government immigration policy that is designed to prevent false asylum claims and deter desperate migrants from making dangerous and futile journeys. The administration last reached out to the Supreme Court in December 2018. On that occasion, the justices rejected a rule that required asylum petitions to be submitted at official ports of entry only.
Attorneys with experience in immigration cases may help those who wish to apply for asylum in the United States to gather compelling evidence of a threat of persecution in their home countries based on their race, religion, national origin or political opinions. This is important because the inability to provide such evidence during what is known as credible fear screening is the reason that the vast majority of asylum claims are denied.