Saturday, February 29, 2020
The Ninth Circuit opinion (Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf) was written by Judge William A. Fletcher, and joined by Richard A. Paez. Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez dissented. Judge Fletcher's introductory paragraph succinctly summarizes the court's holding:
"Plaintiffs brought suit in district court seeking an injunction against the Government’s recently promulgated Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), under which nonMexican asylum seekers who present themselves at our southern border are required to wait in Mexico while their asylum applications are adjudicated. The district court entered a preliminary injunction setting aside the MPP, and the Government appealed. We affirm."
Here is a NPR report on the ruling.
In another case (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump) decided yesterday, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion written by Richard A. Paez, joined by Judge William A. Fletcher, with a concurrence by Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez,
"affirmed the district court’s grant of a temporary restraining order and a subsequent grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a rule and presidential proclamation that, together, strip asylum eligibility from every migrant who crosses into the United States along the southern border of Mexico between designated ports of entry. In November 2018, the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security adopted an interim final rule (`the Rule') that makes migrants who enter the United States in violation of a `a presidential proclamation or other presidential order suspending or limiting the entry of aliens along the southern border with Mexico' categorically ineligible for asylum. The same day, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation (`the Proclamation') that suspends the entry of all migrants along the southern border of the United States for ninety days, except for any migrant who enters at a port of entry and properly presents for inspection."
UPDATE (Feb. 29): The panel has issued a stay in the MPP case:
"The emergency request for an immediate stay of this court’s February 28, 2020 decision pending disposition of a petition for certiorari is granted pending further order of this court. Appellees are directed to file a response by the close of business on Monday, March 2, 2020. Any reply is due by the close of business on Tuesday, March 3, 2020."
UPDATE (March 3): Peter Margulies on Lawfare looks at the two Ninth Circuit rulings.
UPDATE (March 5): For procedural wrangling (stays of the panel's ruling, etc.) in the Innovation Law Lab appeal, click here.