East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Donald Trump, 932 F.3d 742

Background

In response to a surge in asylum applications, DOJ and DHS issued a joint interim final Rule (Nov. 9, 2018) making aliens who enter the U.S. across the southern border contrary to a presidential proclamation ineligible for asylum; the same day the President issued a Proclamation suspending entry between ports of entry on the southern border.
The Rule invokes the Attorney General’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) to promulgate additional asylum ineligibilities and ties eligibility to compliance with a § 1182(f) proclamation.
Plaintiffs (immigrant-assistance organizations) sued under the APA, challenging the Rule’s substantive consistency with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) (right to apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival”) and alleging failure to follow APA notice-and-comment and 30‑day delay requirements.
The district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining enforcement of the Rule; the government appealed and sought a stay of the TRO pending appeal.
The Ninth Circuit treated the TRO as appealable, held that the organizations have organizational standing and fall within the INA’s zone of interests, and denied the government’s stay request as the government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether the Rule (with the Proclamation) is consistent with INA §1158(a)(1)	The combination effectively bars asylum to aliens who entered outside a port of entry, nullifying §1158(a)(1)’s grant that any alien physically present may apply “whether or not at a designated port of arrival.”	The Rule only limits eligibility to be granted asylum (authorized by §1158(b)(2)(C)); it does not prevent an alien from applying, so it is consistent with §1158(a)(1).	The court held the Rule is likely inconsistent with §1158(a)(1): a rule conditioning eligibility on manner of entry tied to a proclamation is effectively a bar that renders the statutory right to apply a nullity.
2) Whether the agencies lawfully bypassed APA notice-and-comment and 30‑day delay (foreign affairs / good cause exceptions)	Agencies failed to justify invocation of the foreign affairs or good cause exceptions; speculative harms do not permit bypassing APA procedures.	Agencies claimed foreign-affairs exigency (ongoing negotiations; southern-border crisis) and that notice would cause a surge and threaten life/public safety (good cause).	The court held government unlikely to prevail: the record did not support application of the foreign affairs exception or the narrow good‑cause standard.
3) Standing and zone of interests	Plaintiffs alleged organizational injuries (diversion of resources and funding loss) and sought to protect clients; thus they have standing and fall within INA’s zone of interests.	Government argued no Article III standing (no cognizable injury) and plaintiffs are outside the INA’s zone of interests.	The court held plaintiffs lack third‑party standing for clients but do have organizational standing and their interests are within the INA’s zone of interests.
4) Scope of remedy (nationwide TRO)	Nationwide relief is necessary to redress a uniform immigration policy and to prevent differing enforcement; TRO scope appropriate to preserve status quo.	Government argued TRO overly broad.	The court held universal relief permissible given immigration‑policy uniformity and lack of narrower alternative presented.

Key Cases Cited

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay factors and standards)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing via diversion of resources)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (distinction between aliens who have entered and those seeking entry)
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (limits of APA review over Presidential acts)
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (nationwide injunctions in immigration context)