Thread by @NicoletteGlazer

Here is the link to Judge Tigar's decision
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

https://twitter.com/Haleaziz/status/1171083196294819841

I'm next on the docket ... so will tweet the highlights of the decision after I am done. But stay tuned this one is something else!

Heeyey! I go in for a quick hearing and in the meantime #ImmigrationMonday, I see, has hit us again. Much to chew on but as I promised here is the 4 on Judge Tigar's reinstated nationwide injunction in EastBay Sanctuary II litigation.

This is about the latest #asylum ban [if you transit through another country without asking for asylum there U are ineligible for asylum upon presentment at US POE]. Quick history
* DHS publishes in July 2019 as interim final rule
* Judge Tigar issued nationwide injunction 1/

* DHS runs to 9th Circuit & asks for stay on appeal
* Panel keeps injunction w/in 9th Cir only but puts in dec cryptic language that district judge can develop record on nationwide injunction
* Judge Tigar reinstated the nationwide injunction today. 2/

Now this is the case in which one of the judges on the Panel opened his questioning with "district court made so many mistakes ..." Yep. This is the one. 3/

Judge Tigar decision is extremely interesting & novel so Im quite sure DHS will appeal and depending on the panel they draw I would not be surprised that they let it stand and thus clear the road to SCOTUS just as it gets ready for new term. But will see. Now back to decision 4/

In granting nationwide injunction in #transitcountry asylum ban court spent most of the ink on scope of authority to rule & enjoin regulations, as if he is trying to fend off potential jurisdictional issues. In doing so he does little to address the fillers from recent SCOTUS 5/

In essence the Court ruled that without a nationwide injunction it cannot give the Plaintiff "the full remedy" they are requesting and are entitled to. On the surface this looks like a foolproof finding especially since immigration is federal but the way he got there is puzzling.

As an after-thought he points to the need to maintain uniform immigration policy and the administrative and logistic problems with patchwork decisions by various courts on how a procedural {which in part #transitcountry is} should be applied to a mobile group of affected ppl. 7/

Rather Judge Tigar focused entirely on the harm to the two organizational plaintiffs. Although I have my own beef with the whole 'organizational vs individual standing' dichotomy the way he phrased here is pretty poor. 8/

Either he does not understand the nature of Law Lab and Al Otro Lado's vital work for asylum seekers who have basically noone else to turn to for help as they are stranded under #RemainInMexico or soemthing got lost in transmission. 9/

Neither of those two organizations is about money or about hand wringing as to how difficult asylum law is. NO.No. and again No. So I just find it bizarre that it emphasized redesign of workshops & templates & additional time spent to adjust to new regs. 10/

Dunno but this just begs for "well this is the cost of doing business" and 'laws and regulations do change' rebuke from hmm let's say J #Gorsuch ... If taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that anyone with tangential interest would have standing when laws are amended 11/

But Spokeo seems to be looking for a 'real world' injury to convey standing that is in someway not diluted to extreme in the sea of ppl who may have to adjust to changes in statutory or regulatory landscape. 12/

Court: "If the injunction is limited to the Ninth Circuit, it will force Al Otro Lado to provide a much broader range of advice to pre-entry asylum seekers to account for different outcomes based on where they choose to enter the country and travel within it." 13/

From there Judge Tigar states as follows:
"the harm to the Organizations, not their potential clients, was the focus of the
Court’s injunction." ... Outch! I really did not expect this one coming ... 14/

As a cap court does a bit of a meandering puzzling about how decisional authority could impact a case that changes venue. At its bottom it is all a valid concern but it does not take into account that we have operated w/ "this rule apply only in XX circuit" BIA decisions for ages

After all, it is the place removal proceedings are concluded that governs which circuit court precedent apply.

BOTTOM LINE: Another Admin effort to close the door on asylum seekers is enjoined in its entirety & as it applies to everyone affected. Hooray!💯
***
I just hope that this is not the one that end up blowing up in our faces to F*up standing in immigration cases for eternity. END/