What specific provisions are in the June 2024 Presidential Proclamation and interim final rule restricting asylum?

1. What triggers the suspension and how long it lasts

The proclamation ties the suspension and limitation of entry to encounter metrics: it authorizes closure “between ports of entry” when border encounters hit a high-volume trigger (administration materials describe an initial operational trigger in public summaries as an average of 2,500 daily encounters over seven days) and the IFR went into effect June 5, 2024; the IFR defines “emergency border circumstances” as lasting from that start date until the discontinuation date, typically 14 calendar days after the Secretary of Homeland Security determines there has been a seven‑day average of fewer than 1,500 encounters ^{[3] [1] [4]}.

2. Who is covered and who is exempt

The proclamation suspends and limits entry of “any noncitizen into the United States across the southern border” subject to enumerated exceptions: U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, certain visa-holders or those with lawful permission, unaccompanied children, severe trafficking victims, and people demonstrating “exceptionally compelling circumstances,” among others named in the proclamation and fact sheets ^{[5] [6] [2]}.

3. How the IFR restricts asylum eligibility and raises evidentiary burdens

Under the interim final rule, aliens arriving during “emergency border circumstances” who do not fall within the proclamation’s exceptions are ineligible for asylum unless they show by a preponderance of the evidence that “exceptionally compelling circumstances” exist; the IFR also imposes higher screening standards—requiring a showing of a reasonable probability of persecution or torture for certain protections—and provides for rapid removal when lawful thresholds are not met ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Operational mechanics: encounters, screening, and expedited removal

The proclamation and IFR specify how an “encounter” is counted (for example, physical apprehensions within 100 miles of the southwest land border during a defined period, coastal apprehensions within 14 days of entry, and certain inadmissibility determinations at POEs) and authorize DHS to process and remove individuals more quickly—those who manifest fear yet fail to establish the required reasonable probability can be promptly removed and subject to enforcement consequences ^{[6] [2]}.

5. Consequences attached: reentry bars and criminal exposure

Individuals ordered removed under the proclamation/rule face at least a five‑year bar to reentry and may be subject to potential criminal prosecution for unlawful entry or reentry; DHS framed these consequences as tools to impose “swift consequences” on irregular crossers who cannot establish a legal basis to remain ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Practical impediments, appointments, and real‑world effects noted by advocates

Implementation relies on ports‑of‑entry processes like CBP One appointments and other operational controls—people arriving outside POEs or at POEs without appointments are particularly affected—and advocacy groups and legal clinics warn the rules have produced long waits, stranded people in Mexico, and litigation over whether the measures unlawfully block access to asylum or erode due process ^{[7] [8] [4] [9]}.

7. Legal context and contested status

These actions replicate an executive strategy used in prior administrations and were promulgated as an IFR to be effective immediately; they quickly drew legal challenges and analysis noting the policy’s reliance on executive authority under INA Sections and on proclamation powers, while critics argue prior similar actions were enjoined and that the new measures raise significant statutory and human‑rights questions ^{[1] [4] [10]}.