By S.M. | NEW YORK
ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a temporary but significant win in a battle over his plan to crack down on migrants seeking asylum on America’s southern border. The decision permits the administration to begin turning away the vast majority of migrants seeking protection at the US-Mexico border hailing from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and elsewhere. If these individuals fleeing persecution or gang violence cannot prove they have applied for and been denied asylum in another country, they are ineligible to apply in America. This big change to asylum rules, announced on July 16th, had been stymied in court—until now.
Days after the Trump administration announced it would tighten requirements for asylum applicants, a federal judge blocked the move as a violation of federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedures Act, a law dictating how regulations may be changed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then upheld the district court’s injunction but narrowed it: the old asylum regime would hold in California and Arizona (since they are within the boundaries of Ninth Circuit) but the Trump administration would be free to impose its new rule in Texas and New Mexico, states belonging to other circuits.
