What were the legal challenges to the June 2024 proclamation and interim final rule restricting asylum at the southern border?
Executive summary
The June 3–5, 2024 Presidential Proclamation and matching DHS/DOJ interim final rule (IFR) triggered immediate lawsuits arguing the measures unlawfully bar asylum for people who cross between ports of entry, exceed presidential statutory authority, and violate procedural and substantive limits of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) [1] [2] [3]. Advocates and legal groups pressed both statutory preemption and precedent-based arguments that similar Trump-era actions were struck down, while the administration defended the rule as a lawful use of 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) and other INA authorities to address emergency border conditions [4] [5].
1. Immediate plaintiffs and claims — who sued and on what grounds
Within days of the policy taking effect, immigrant-rights organizations and legal centers including the ACLU, RAICES, Las Americas, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant and others filed suits claiming the proclamation and IFR effectively bar asylum based on the place or manner of entry and therefore contravene section 208 of the INA, which the challengers say guarantees the right to seek asylum regardless of how an individual arrives [3] [2] [6]. These complaints also invoke the APA, arguing the IFR was issued without lawful regulatory authority and in an arbitrary and capricious manner that will produce unlawful removals and harm to people with meritorious claims [2] [7].
2. Core statutory battlegrounds — 212(f), 215(a), and section 208
The administration grounded the Proclamation in 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA to suspend or limit entry during “emergency border circumstances,” and the IFR implemented asylum-eligibility limits tied to a numerical encounter trigger; opponents reply that neither statute authorizes extinguishing the statutory right to apply for asylum embedded in section 208, and courts will likely evaluate whether the executive’s reading fits within existing precedent constraining such uses of 212(f) [1] [4] [2].
3. Precedent and the Trump-era analogues that plaintiffs rely on
Challengers point to prior litigation where Trump-era proclamations and IFRs barring asylum for entrants between ports of entry were enjoined or found unlawful, arguing those rulings demonstrate courts have rejected analogous attempts to condition asylum on manner of entry; amici and bar associations cite those precedents as persuasive authority that the Biden measures overreach [4] [2] [8].
4. Procedural and international-law arguments — APA, expedited removals, and non-refoulement
Legal briefs and advocacy groups stress procedural defects under the APA (issuing an IFR that immediately takes effect while comments are solicited) and warn that the rule’s expedited removal mechanics and raised screening thresholds will order removals of people who might otherwise establish credible fear or qualify for withholding/CAT protections, potentially violating non-refoulement obligations under international law [9] [7] [10].
5. Administration’s policy justification and statutory defenses
The administration’s public materials frame the measures as emergency management tools to preserve border security and process capacity, pointing to the IFR’s exceptions (e.g., unaccompanied children, trafficking victims, “exceptionally compelling circumstances”) and to the statutory suspension power under 212(f) to defend the rule’s legality and necessity in the face of high encounter levels [5] [1].
6. Stakes, likely judicial calculus, and political context
Courts deciding these challenges must weigh statutory text, agency deference boundaries, prior caselaw on asylum procedure restrictions, and the consequences of allowing immediate enforcement; litigants emphasize human-rights harms and statutory protections while the administration highlights operational necessity, with legal observers predicting courts will scrutinize whether the proclamation and IFR impermissibly nullify the asylum statute rather than merely regulate entry [4] [6] [11].
7. Where advocates and government disagree on remedies and broader agendas
Advocates demand injunctions and declaratory relief to block implementation, arguing the rule’s real-world effect is removal of people who might win asylum and potential refoulement; the administration seeks to preserve a tool it says restores order at the southern border, an argument that also advances political aims to show enforcement action in a charged debate over immigration [7] [5] [12]. Bar and legal-advocacy comments frame their opposition as fidelity to statutory and human-rights obligations, while political incentives to claim decisive action inform the executive defense [2] [6].