Federal judges on Tuesday challenged government lawyers over the legality of a Trump administration rule that denies asylum to people who don't come through a designated port of entry, even though the law specifically allows them to apply — regardless of where they enter the U.S.
The exchange was part of a hearing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on two cases challenging Trump administration policies restricting access to asylum protections for tens of thousands of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. The hearing in San Francisco addressed both the “port of entry” rule and another policy that forces most non-Mexicans who seek asylum at the border to wait in Mexico while their cases are heard in U.S. immigration court.
The administration has sought to deter the growing number of families and others seeking safe haven in the United States, many of whom say they are fleeing violence in Central America from which their government fails to protect them. The policies are part of a larger effort by the administration to restrict immigration overall.
In the first case, Justice Department attorney Scott Stewart asked the three-judge panel to overturn a lower court ruling last December that blocked the “port of entry” rule. The government has said the restriction is “an important rule designed to address a crisis at our southern border that is overwhelming our asylum system.”
In court, Stewart said the rule is valid because it still allows people who don’t come through a port of entry to apply for asylum — even if none of them will be granted it.
