WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier this week, a federal court blocked President Trump’s proclamation to shut down asylum at the border in RAICES v. Noem.
According to an ACLU press release, the federal lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and ACLU of Texas.
The press release states the lawsuit was brought on behalf of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. These groups provide legal services to asylum seekers and people barred from seeking protection in the United States under this proclamation.
According to the press release, the court rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to use the “212(f)” proclamation, which falsely cited an “invasion” as justification to deny asylum protections. This leads to the deportation of families and individuals to countries where they are at risk of persecution with no recourse, the press release said.
The plaintiffs were able to successfully argue that Trump’s proclamation ignored protections put in place by Congress and backed by generations of court decisions, the press release said. These protections ensure people have the opportunity to have their asylum claims heard.
According to the press release, this proclamation is more extreme than Trump’s previous attempts to shut down asylum during his first administration. The current proclamation leaves no way for people to seek asylum.
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the merits of the case, said, “This is a hugely important decision. Not only will it save the lives of families fleeing grave danger, it reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country’s separation of powers.”
“We are grateful that the federal courts continue to agree with us that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental protection provided by Congress and ingrained in U.S. law for decades,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center.
Zwick continued in her statement, saying, “No president has the authority to unilaterally block people who come to our border seeking safety. The courts have repeatedly sided with us on this issue, and we will continue to fight cruel policies, under any administration, that harm individuals and families who flee persecution.”
Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project, also commented on the decision, calling it a “win for human dignity and the rule of law.”
Garza continued to say, “The government cannot use cruelty as a weapon against people fleeing violence” and that “the Texas Civil Rights Project will continue fighting for the rights of those seeking safety at our border.”
“We are grateful that today the court refused to accept the administration’s reckless disregard for the legal right to seek asylum,” said Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.
Babaie continued in her statement, saying, “Every day that the United States fails to uphold its asylum process puts women, children, and families fleeing violence at risk of exploitation and serious harm.”
Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, called the Trump administration’s invocation of a 212(f) proclamation to block access to asylum “blatantly xenophobic.”
St. John continued to say, “Both U.S. and international law are clear — people have the right to seek protection at the border. We are grateful that the court has recognized this right and demand that the Trump administration comply and restart processing at the border immediately.”
Edith Sangüeza, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, said, “As the court rightly affirmed today, the Trump administration cannot rewrite our immigration laws and invent its own extra-statutory system to block people from exercising their rights.”
Sangüeza continued, saying, “The government cannot wield racist, baseless claims of an ‘invasion’ to demonize refugees and unilaterally strip them of that right. For over six months, the illegal border proclamation has wrought nothing but suffering and chaos, forcing people fleeing persecution back to peril and leaving others stuck in detention, struggling to navigate a made-up process.”
“The administration should now comply with the court’s order and immediately reinstate a fair asylum process at the southern border,” Sangüeza concluded.
Javier Hidalgo, legal director at RAICES, said the ruling had three points: “First, we are a nation of laws. Second, the Trump administration’s sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our Constitution and our legislative branch. And third, the judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy.”
Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the ACLU of the District of Columbia, said the ruling made clear that “President Trump’s attempt to eliminate these life-or-death rights with the swipe of a pen and under false pretenses had no legal basis.”
Adriana Piñon, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, called it a “key ruling for our nation,” as it rejects “the Trump administration’s efforts to upend our asylum system in a key ruling for our nation.”
Piñon called Trump’s proclamation an “attack on the fundamental and longstanding right to seek safety in the U.S. from violence and persecution.”
