Trump’s 2018 Narrowing of Asylum Eligibility Is Voided by Court

(Bloomberg) -- A 2018 attempt by President Donald Trump to limit asylum eligibility only to people who cross into the U.S. at official entry points along the southern border was struck down by a federal court judge in Washington who found it illegal.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ ruling Friday comes as federal courts in Washington and San Francisco are weighing the president’s more recent efforts to restrict such eligibility only to people who first sought asylum in another country that they traveled through on the way to the U.S.

Migrants found eligible for asylum are deemed to be refugees who can lawfully remain in the U.S., work, receive financial assistance and potentially qualify for citizenship. Trump has made the issue of restricting their entry a centerpiece of his 2020 reelection campaign.

In his 77-page ruling, Moss said he doesn’t doubt Trump’s edict reflects a determination that a surge of migrants fleeing endemic violence in Central America across the southern U.S. border is a problem of national interest.

“But that assessment is neither sufficient to override a statutory mandate permitting all aliens present in the United States to apply for asylum, regardless of whether they arrived in the United States ‘at a designated port of arrival,’” Moss said, “nor does it suffice to shift the congressional assignment of authority to adopt additional limitations on asylum ‘by regulation’ from the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security to the president.”

Moss, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, issued a pair of accompanying orders, one recognizing a class of would-be plaintiffs consisting of all non-citizen asylum seekers who crossed into the country at unofficial entry points after Nov. 9, 2018, while the other denied as moot their requests for an injunction because the measure is no longer in force.

In his Nov. 9 proclamation, Trump said the nation had “a long and proud history of offering protection to aliens who are fleeing persecution and torture,” provided they otherwise qualify for that sanctuary under U.S. law. However, he added, the U.S. system was being “overwhelmed” by those crossing away from official entry points and then claiming fear of persecution.

“Entry of large numbers of aliens into the United States unlawfully between ports of entry on the southern border is contrary to the national interest,” and puts lives of aliens and U.S. law enforcement agents at risk, while disrupting orderly processing, he said.

Trump’s more recent attempts to impose new asylum qualifications is still being litigated.

Washington federal judge Timothy Kelly -- a Trump appointee -- on July 24 denied a request from advocates for the asylum seekers to put the newer rule on temporary hold, but U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco temporarily barred the implementation of the rule later that day. Tigar was named to the bench by Obama.

The Moss case is O.A. v. Trump, 18-cv-2718, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington). The more recent cases are Capital Area Immigrant Rights Coalition v. Trump, 19-cv-2117, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington) and East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 19-cv-04073, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco)

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Harris in Washington at aharris16@bloomberg.net;Edvard Pettersson in Los Angeles at epettersson@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, Joe Schneider, Steve Stroth

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.