The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Refugee Act of 1980 and the Immigration and Nationality Act both state that a migrant who arrives in the United States-'whether or not at a designated port of arrival'-may apply for asylum. In November 2018, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security jointly adopted an interim final rule which, coupled with a presidential proclamation issued the same day ('the Proclamation'), strips asylum eligibility from every migrant who crosses into the United States between designated ports of entry. The Rule makes migrants who enter the United States in violation of 'a presidential proclamation or other presidential order suspending or limiting the entry of aliens along the southern border with Mexico' categorically ineligible for asylum. The Rule and Proclamation make asylum entirely unavailable to migrants who enter the country between ports of entry. The day the Proclamation and Rule were issued, four legal services organizations that represent current and future asylum-seekers (Ps) sued to prevent enforcement of the Rule. Ps argued that the Rule was likely unlawful because it was issued without public notice and comment or complying with the thirty-day grace period required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Ps argued that the Rule conflicts with the plain text of the INA and is arbitrary and capricious because it constitutes a severe departure from the Board of Immigration Appeals's and the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of asylum practices in the United States. D claimed in part that the good-cause exception applied. D sought a stay which was denied and the district court issued an injunction. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.