East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. William Barr
964 F.3d 832
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- In July 2019 DOJ and DHS issued an interim final "Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications" Rule that, with limited exceptions, bars asylum for aliens who transit through another country (typically Mexico) en route to the U.S. southern land border unless they first applied for and were denied protection in that third country.
- Four nonprofit legal-service organizations that represent asylum seekers challenged the Rule and obtained a preliminary injunction in the Northern District of California enjoining its enforcement in the four U.S. states on the Mexico border (CA, AZ, NM, TX).
- The agencies invoked 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) (authority to promulgate additional eligibility conditions "consistent with" § 1158) and argued the Rule is consistent with the safe-third-country bar (§1158(a)(2)(A)) and the firm-resettlement bar (§1158(b)(2)(A)(vi)).
- The district court held the Rule likely violated the APA on statutory-consistency and arbitrary-and-capricious grounds and enjoined enforcement; the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, finding plaintiffs had standing and that the Rule was both inconsistent with §1158 and arbitrary and capricious.
- The court also upheld the scope of the injunction (covering the four border states), explaining vacatur/setting-aside of unlawful agency action and the need for uniform immigration policy justified broad injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Organizations will divert resources, overhaul programs, and lose funding because the Rule removes many clients from eligibility | Standing not meaningfully challenged on appeal (raised below) | Organizations have organizational standing based on diversion of resources and concrete funding harms; standing upheld |
| Whether Rule is "consistent with" 8 U.S.C. §1158 (statutory authority) | Rule goes beyond and undermines §1158's safe-third-country and firm-resettlement protections; it provides no genuine assurance of a safe alternative | §1158(b)(2)(C) permits additional categorical eligibility limits; Rule consistent with safe-place aims and agencies' discretion | Rule is not "consistent with" §1158 and thus unlawful under the APA (set aside as not in accordance with law / in excess of statutory limitations) |
| Arbitrary & capricious challenge | Agencies ignored record evidence showing Mexico is unsafe, assumed failure to seek protection abroad indicates weak claims, and failed to consider unaccompanied minors | Rule rationally deters meritless claims and relieves system strain; Mexico's accession to refugee instruments and increasing capacity support Rule | Rule arbitrary and capricious: agency conclusions ran counter to record, failed to consider alternative explanations and the Rule’s effect on unaccompanied minors; remand/vacatur warranted |
| Scope of injunction | Broad relief needed to remedy organizational harms and preserve uniform immigration policy; vacatur applies nationwide to the Rule's regulated population at the southern border | Injunction should be geographically and/or party-limited (e.g., only within Ninth Circuit or to plaintiffs' clients) | District court did not abuse discretion in enjoining enforcement in the four border states; broad injunctive relief appropriate given APA vacatur principles and immigration-uniformity concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency statutory-interpretation/deference framework)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard; requirement of reasoned decisionmaking)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (distinguishing eligibility for asylum from discretionary grant)
- Rosenberg v. Woo, 402 U.S. 49 (1971) (transit through third countries does not automatically bar asylum; firm-resettlement concept)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards; irreparable harm requirement)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing doctrine for diversion of resources)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (scope of equitable/injunctive relief guided by extent of violation)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2018) (vacatur and scope of injunctive relief in immigration context)
- Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2020) (immigration policies and the appropriateness of broad relief)