Challenge to Asylum IFR Fails - Arizona v. Garland

Arizona v. Garland

"This is a challenge by 19 states to an administrative action of the Executive Branch establishing a new procedure for adjudicating asylum applications under federal immigration law. The new process – set forth in an Interim Final Rule (the “Asylum IFR”) promulgated by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security (“DOJ” and “DHS,” respectively) – changes the way applications for asylum are considered and decided after a determination of credible fear has been made. Most significantly, for those asylum applications initiated under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, the Asylum IFR dispenses with the adversarial process in the adjudication of asylum claims and vests authority to decide asylum claims in asylum officers rather than immigration judges. The 19 plaintiff states (the “Plaintiff States”) seek declaratory relief and vacatur against the United States, DHS, DOJ, and other government agencies and officials on grounds that the Asylum IFR violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 60 Stat. 237, 5 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., 5 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., the Homeland Security Act (“HSA”), Pub. L. No. 107-296 (2002), the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638 (2006), and the Take Care Clause, art. II, § 3 of the Constitution. ... Defendants’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM [Doc. 214] is GRANTED IN PART, this Court having concluded that the States of Louisiana and Florida do not have Article III standing to challenge the Asylum IFR, and all other Plaintiff States having abandoned their claims of standing with respect to the Asylum IFR. Accordingly, all claims of the Plaintiff States challenging the Asylum IFR under the APA are DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Plaintiff States fail to state a cause of action under either the Secure Fence Act or the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution, and these claims are therefore DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."