Federal Judge Strikes Down Rule Affecting Illegal Immigrants Seeking Asylum
An immigration rule affecting illegal immigrants, which was finalized at the direction of former President Joe Biden, violates federal law, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras
The rule had several parts. It forced illegal immigrants seeking asylum, or protection against deportation because of fear of danger if they were sent to their home country, to schedule a time to appear at a port of entry to request asylum. If they didn't, they would not be eligible for asylum, with limited exceptions.
The rule also required illegal immigrants to alert border officers of concerns if they were removed, made it harder for an illegal immigrant to show they're eligible for other forms of deportation protection, and narrowed the window for asylum seekers in U.S. custody to consult with attorneys from 24 hours to four hours.
Contreras vacated the
A DHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in response to the ruling: 'The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and common sense to our immigration system, and will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of aliens who have no right to be in this country.'
Contreras said that most of the components of the rule violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, a law Congress passed that governs major portions of the immigration system, or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires that officials not impose arbitrary and capricious requirements, Contreras said.
Related Stories
5/6/2025
5/6/2025
'Congress could not have been more clear that asylum is available to noncitizens who enter the United States outside ports of entry. Every court to consider the issue agrees,' the judge said.
Government officials had pointed to how Congress stated in the law that they could impose limitations and conditions on asylum, but the same law says those limits must be consistent with the rest of the law.
The requirement that illegal immigrants bring up fear of return is also illegal because it's arbitrary and capricious, according to the ruling.
Government officials said that the previous standard, which mandated that officers ask each illegal immigrant if they were afraid of what would happen to them in their home country if they were deported, was 'unduly suggestive.'
'That may be true. Even so, DHS and DOJ were obligated to replace that procedure with one that complies with the APA,' the judge said.
Narrowing the minimum window for speaking to an attorney or another person of their choosing also violates the APA because the government has not provided evidence showing that a four-hour period provides enough time to speak to that person, Contreras wrote.
The judge did side with the government on the heightened standard for showing eligibility for deportation protection through a Convention against Torture or withholding of removal order, since the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a specific standard for those orders.
The judge said that his ruling was unlikely to have much impact at this time, given how President Donald Trump ordered the shutdown of the application with which illegal immigrants could make appointments at ports of entry, and how border agent encounters with illegal immigrants have plunged in Trump's second term.
'Defendants request that the Court stay operation of any order granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment for fourteen days to allow for review in the Court of Appeals,' he wrote. 'Because President Trump has separately shut down asylum applications at the southern border, the effects of the Court's order are unlikely to be disruptive. The Court will not stay operation of its order.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
‘It's made up': Democrats say Rubio isn't playing it straight about foreign aid cuts
Democrats are accusing the Trump administration of lying about the state of America's top global health program following massive cuts to foreign aid led by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency. The administration has cut more than a hundred contracts and grants from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries. President Donald Trump has shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired other staffers who supported it. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested Democrats' concerns are overblown, considering that PEPFAR remains '85 percent operative.' Rubio has made the claim repeatedly in budget testimony before Congress, but neither he nor the State Department will provide a detailed accounting to back up the figure. For flummoxed Democrats, it indicates a broader problem: How to respond to Trump's budget requests when his administration refuses to spend the money Congress has provided. Trump last month asked Congress to cut PEPFAR's budget for next year by 40 percent. 'It's made up,' Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said when asked by POLITICO about the 85 percent figure. 'It's the most successful, bipartisan, highly efficient life-saving thing that the United States has ever done and Elon Musk went in and trashed it.' Schatz confronted Rubio about the cuts at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in May, telling him: 'You are required to spend 100 percent of the money.' Rubio said the 15 percent cut targeted programs that weren't delivering the services the government was paying for. He pointed to fraud in Namibia and armed conflict in Sudan as reasons for slashed funding, although it isn't clear those instances were related to PEPFAR. Asked repeatedly by POLITICO for more clarity on what the 85 percent figure represents, a State Department spokesperson said that 'PEPFAR-funded programs that deliver HIV care and treatment or prevention of mother to child transmission services are operational for a majority of beneficiaries.' Data collection is ongoing to capture recent updates to programming, the spokesperson also said, adding: 'We expect to have updated figures later this year.' The day after his exchange with Schatz, Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he meant 85 percent of PEPFAR's beneficiaries were still getting U.S. assistance. But the goal, he said, was to pass off all of the work to the countries where the beneficiaries live. 'We're by far the most generous nation on Earth on foreign aid, and will continue to be by far with no other equal, including China, despite all this alarmist stuff,' he said. People who worked on implementing PEPFAR, both inside and outside the government, as well as advocates for HIV prevention and care, are alarmed nonetheless. A State Department report from the month before Trump took office underscores the breadth of its services. In fiscal 2024, the report says, PEPFAR provided medication to 20.6 million people, including 566,000 children, HIV prevention services to 2.3 million girls and women, and testing for 83.8 million. After DOGE dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development in February, several recipients of PEPFAR grants and contracts said they'd had to lay off staff even as Rubio insisted that life-saving aid was continuing. Rubio's skeptics point to the Trump administration's cancellation of more than 100 HIV grants and contracts, representing about 20 percent of PEPFAR's total budget, according to an analysis by the Center for Global Development, an anti-poverty group. In addition to shutting down USAID, the agency that dispensed and monitored much of that funding, the administration fired experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's global health division who worked on the program, including those specializing in maternal and child HIV. 'I'm not sure where he got these numbers,' Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said of Rubio's 85 percent claim. The lack of clarity has angered HIV activists, who protested against the PEPFAR cuts during the budget hearings where Rubio testified. 'It's unconscionable and alarming to know that 130 days into this administration, Rubio has overseen the completely unnecessary decimation of life-saving services to millions of people, then lying about that fact over and over again,' said Asia Russell, executive director of Health GAP, a nonprofit working on access to HIV treatment in developing countries. Russell was among those arrested for disrupting Rubio's House Foreign Affairs hearing. The confusion around how much of America's celebrated global health program is still operational adds to the uncertainty about the Trump administration's spending plans for the funds Congress appropriated for 2025. And it comes as Congress gears up to consider the president's 2026 budget request. Last month, Trump asked Congress to reduce the PEPFAR budget from $4.8 billion this year to $2.9 billion next. And on Tuesday, the White House asked Congress to claw back $900 million Congress had provided for HIV/AIDS services and other global health initiatives this year, but insisted that it was keeping programs that provide treatment intact. Even if the Trump administration isn't cutting treatment funding, it has cut other awards that ensure drugs reach people, Russell said. She pointed to a terminated USAID award that was delivering drugs to faith-based nonprofit clinics in Uganda. 'The medicine is literally languishing on shelves in a massive warehouse behind the U.S. embassy,' Russell said. Coons said prevention, if that's what's on the chopping block, is as important as treatment: 'For us to step back from supporting not just treatment but prevention puts us at risk of a reemergence of a more lethal, drug resistant form of HIV/AIDS.' Leading Republicans aren't objecting, even though PEPFAR was created by then-President George W. Bush and long enjoyed bipartisan support. Senate Foreign Relations Chair Jim Risch of Idaho declined to comment when POLITICO asked him about the program. Earlier this year, Risch said PEPFAR was 'in jeopardy' after the Biden administration acknowledged that Mozambique, a country in east Africa, had misused program funds to provide at least 21 abortions. Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), who leads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he agrees with the cuts Trump has made and suggested he would want more in the future. 'We also need to be asking the question: How long should American taxpayers borrow money to fund HIV medication for 20 million Africans?' Mast said. The top Democratic appropriators in the House and Senate accused the White House in late May of failing to provide detailed and legally required information about what the administration is doing with billions of dollars Congress directed it to spend. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut wrote to the White House Office of Management and Budget that the administration's decision to not abide by a funding law Trump signed in March has 'degraded Congress' capacity to carry out its legislative responsibilities' and move forward with fiscal 2026 spending bills. It has also clouded plans for reupping the law that directs the PEPFAR program. It expired in March. Mast has said that Congress would consider PEPFAR's future by September, as part of a larger debate about State Department priorities. But Democrats wonder how they could move forward with reauthorizing the program given the uncertainty surrounding it, said a Senate Democratic aide speaking anonymously to share internal debates.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.
Lawrence and Douglas County appeared on a Department of Homeland Security list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' (Clay Wirestone/Kansas Reflector) The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime. What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don't sufficiently detest immigrants. Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn't matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn't have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you're the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government. It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days. The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus 'sanctuary jurisdictions' on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government's inflammatory rhetoric: 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.' There's a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let's press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let's try to figure out why. Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here. What's important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won't obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn't mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one. So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn't spew enough hatred for the White House's liking. A senior DHS official told NPR that 'designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: 'Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' Note those phrases from the official and Noem: 'Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.' 'One law or another.' In other words, it doesn't matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn't matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it. No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don't break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone. Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back. 'This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,' said National Sheriffs' Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. 'Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.' Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: 'We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.' Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don't want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE. Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject. Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job. Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That's OK. That's protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Miami Herald
32 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Senate Moves to End Fuel Economy Fines That Hit Automakers Hardest
Senate Republicans have proposed ending fines for automakers not meeting Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules as part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill." CAFE fuel economy standards have been active since 1975, with the initial penalty at a $5 fine per 0.1 mpg below the standard, multiplied by the number of vehicles sold in the US market. In 1997, this fine increased to $5.50, and today, the penalty is $14 per 0.1 mpg below the standard, with some automakers significantly more affected than others. Stellantis has paid the highest amount of recent fines, including $156.6 million for the 2016 and 2017 model years, a record $235.5 million for the 2018 to 2019 period, and $190.7 million for the 2019 and 2020 periods. General Motors (GM) paid $128.2 million in penalties for 2016 and 2017. In 2001, BMW paid a $27 million CAFE fine. If Congress doesn't change CAFE rules, GM, Ford, and Stellantis are projected to pay over $10 billion in penalties from 2027 to 2032 under stricter regulations set by the Biden administration, according to Transport Topics. Senate Republicans also proposed lowering emissions requirements, ending the $7,500 electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, imposing a $250 annual EV registration fee, and phasing out EV battery production tax credits in 2028. Tesla earned almost $2.8 billion last year by selling regulatory credits to other automakers, helping competitors meet government-established car emissions rules, many of which are in California. Competitors who don't manufacture enough zero-emission vehicles face steep fines if they don't purchase regulatory credits from Tesla. If rolled back, new emissions requirements would save automakers $200 million, Reuters reports. The Transportation Department also declared that former President Biden's administration exceeded its authority by assuming a high EV adoption rate in calculating fuel economy rates, increasing the likelihood of looser CAFE standards. Under President Biden, 2027 to 2031 model-year passenger cars faced a 2% annual fuel economy increase requirement, with trucks subject to a 4% increase. However, new final rules would keep the 2027 to 2031 passenger car fuel economy at 2% while lowering the annual increase for trucks from 4% to 2% for 2029 to 2031 models. However, separate legislation may eliminate CAFE fines altogether. Automakers could still face tailpipe emissions rules established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), even if Congress eliminates CAFE fines. While Congress can overturn EPA rules, its most recent CAFE proposal doesn't impact EPA penalties. As of 2025, automakers are subject to EPA penalties up to $45,268 per non-compliant vehicle or engine, $4,527 per tampering event or sale of defeat device, and $45,268 per day for reporting and record-keeping violations. If passed, Congress's proposal could significantly shape the U.S. EV adoption rate in favor of lowering immediate costs for legacy automakers. "We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States. The previous administration illegally used CAFE standards as an electric vehicle mandate, raising new car prices and reducing safety. Resetting CAFE standards as Congress intended will lower vehicle costs and ensure the American people can purchase the cars they want," said current Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy regarding Congress's proposal to end CAFE fines. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
