The Trump Administration won a battle in the Ninth Circuit this week, when a three-judge panel permitted a policy that forces asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico as their U.S. court cases proceed. On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction that had been issued in April by a California District Court.
The case was initially filed in February by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups on behalf of 11 asylum-seekers from Central America. The complaint alleged that the policy, known as the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP) was in violation of a bedrock principle of U.S. and international law known as “nonrefoulement,” which means that prospective asylum seekers cannot be returned to places where they may be persecuted. It further argued that the MPP was capricious and arbitrary and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
In an April 18 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that nearly all of California’s “sanctuary state” law can remain in effect, dealing a blow to the Trump Department of Justice, which has challenged three of California’s “sanctuary” laws.
A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 21, 2018, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for approximately 50,000 Haitians. On April 11, Judge William F. Kuntz II issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s decision pending the outcome of the litigation.
On January 13, 2019, Judge Haywood Gilliam of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the Trump administration’s two final rules on religious and moral objections to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) contraceptive mandate […]
On March 6, 2019, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question “Is this person a citizen of the United States” to the 2020 census in a 126-page decision. Similar to Judge Furman’s census […]
On February 15, 2019, President Trump signed the 2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act which provides $1.375 billion for the construction of primary pedestrian fencing in specific locations at the US-Mexican border (the Southern Border). On the same day, President Trump issued […]
Last week, two federal judges issued back-to-back decisions which block Trump administration rules (“Final Rules”) from taking effect; these Final Rules would have made it significantly easier for employers to deny many women contraceptive coverage under the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) based on either religious or moral grounds. The ACA, in a provision known as the Women’s Health Amendment, mandates that preventive care and screenings, including contraception, be offered without cost in all group health plans. These Final Rules would have significantly expanded the ability of employers to obtain a “religious exemption” based upon objection to contraceptive care, and would also have created a new “moral exemption” to the contraceptive care mandate.
On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsigned order granted the Trump administration’s application to lift injunctions blocking the ban on transgender individuals from the military “pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought.”
On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to act on Trump administration’s appeal in DACA II, which leaves DACA intact for now after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s affirmation of the District Court’s preliminary injunction on the termination of the DACA program. The Justices’ next private conference to consider petition seeking review is scheduled for February 15.
On January 15, 2019, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States” to the 2020 census.
Judge Furman enjoined the government from implementing Secretary Ross’s March 26, 2018 decision or from adding a question to the 2020 census questionnaire “without curing the legal defects” identified in the 277-page opinion.