Last week, I pointed out the irony that President Biden would soon be indicted for enacting the travel ban. The American Civil Liberties Union was the first group to file a lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union didn’t even cite Trump v. Hawaii. Let’s see if the Department of Justice recognizes this counter-precedent. The plaintiffs in the ACLU case are two Texas immigration advocacy groups. But they are afraid to file lawsuits in Texas or anywhere near the border. Instead, the ACLU filed suit against the more friendly DDC
There will be other similar sets. My predictions for venue: California will sue in the NDCA (San Francisco, not Sacramento), Maryland will sue in the DMD (Green Belt, not Baltimore), and New York will sue in the SDNY (Manhattan, not Albany). The American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs may seek a nationwide removal. So everyone, please switch sides on forum shopping and state bans.
A project that needed a quick tag. None of the plaintiffs here are bona fide refugees seeking asylum protection. Instead, refugee groups advocate some kind of “resource diversion” theory, which sounds reasonable. Haven Properties:
Under the rule, clients in the Americas must now “demonstrate” an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of return before they can undergo a credible fear interview. Therefore, Latin America must revise its representation strategies and transfer resources Helping those who are truly afraid to manifest that fear before entering the United States significantly limits the number of customers it can serve.
These groups should be careful. The court could have, but did not overturn Haven Properties exist Acheson v. Laufer. But this could be a good opportunity for the courts to rule in favor of Biden’s policies while reducing self-inflicted Title III harm.
