East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Joseph Biden
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
The case challenges a presidential proclamation that strips asylum eligibility, which is at stake for asylum seekers.
What the court decided
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the November 2018 interim final rule (and the accompanying presidential proclamation) that made migrants who cross the southern border between designated ports of entry categorically ineligible for asylum. The panel held the Rule is inconsistent with the asylum statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), and that even if the statute were ambiguous the Rule fails Chevron step two as an arbitrary and capricious interpretation, because it conditions asylum eligibility on a manner-of-entry factor long understood to be worth little weight. The court further held the Rule is unreasonable in light of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, and that it likely did not qualify for the APA's good-cause or foreign-affairs exceptions to notice-and-comment. Finding no abuse of discretion, the panel affirmed the preliminary injunctions.
Categories
Authoritative link
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.