In a significant setback for the Biden administration’s attempts to control the ongoing border crisis, a federal judge has blocked a crucial rule aimed at curbing irregular migration. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California issued a ruling in response to a lawsuit brought forth by a coalition of left-wing immigration groups, claiming that the rule resembled a previously blocked Trump-era transit ban. The judge found the rule to be “both substantively and procedurally invalid” and temporarily delayed its implementation for 14 days to allow time for the administration to appeal.
The contested rule, known as the “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways,” was introduced in May and sought to make migrants ineligible for asylum if they entered the United States illegally and failed to utilize the expanded lawful pathways established by the federal government. The Biden administration had promoted the rule as a central component of its strategy to manage the post-Title 42 surge, which saw a sharp increase in encounters at the southern border.
Judge Tigar’s ruling was based on his assessment that the notice procedures for the rule fell short of requirements set by the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs rulemaking by federal agencies. He contended that the 30-day notice period provided by the administration was inadequate given the complexity of the rule. This decision represents a significant blow to the administration’s efforts to restore order at the border and regulate migration more effectively.
The lawsuit was met with approval from left-wing immigration activist groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who argued that the rule was inhumane and limited the ability of foreign nationals to seek asylum in the U.S. The ACLU hailed the court’s decision as a victory, though it also urged the administration to do more to fulfill its promise of providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution.
Despite the setback, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas remains confident in the rule’s legality and has stated that the DOJ will appeal the decision and seek a stay on the judge’s order. He emphasized that migrants who do not use lawful pathways will be presumed ineligible for asylum and may face removal, a five-year ban on admission, and potential criminal prosecution for unlawful reentry.
The Biden administration has faced mounting challenges in handling the border crisis, and the blocked asylum rule adds to the hurdles it must overcome. The rule was designed to dissuade irregular migration and encourage migrants to use legal pathways while excluding unaccompanied minors from its scope.
As the ruling leaves the administration’s border strategy in limbo, attention will now turn to DHS Secretary Mayorkas’s upcoming testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Meanwhile, the number of migrant encounters in June saw a decrease from record highs in May but remained significantly higher than pre-2021 levels. The debate over the rule’s effectiveness in addressing the border crisis is far from settled, with Republican-led states also challenging its validity.
