Judge rules Trump's first-term 'Remain in Mexico' policy was unlawful

Left · 2U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of California ruled that the first Trump administration's Migrant Protection Protocols, known as "Remain in Mexico", were illegal. 1 2 Left · 2The 40-page ruling was issued on Wednesday, and a redacted version was unsealed on Friday. 1 2 Left · 1The case was brought in 2020 by two legal aid groups, the Immigrant Defenders Law Center and Jewish Family Service of San Diego, together with several asylum seekers. 1

Left · 2The policy began in January 2019 and required many asylum seekers arriving from Mexico to wait there while their cases went through U.S. immigration courts. According to the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security placed 66,985 people in that first version; Human Rights First, cited by The Independent, put the number expelled to Mexican border camps between January 2019 and January 2021 at more than 70,000. 1 2 Left · 1Bernal found that the program broke a federal law requiring agencies to reasonably justify their decisions, writing that "there is no evidence that Defendants considered the conditions in Mexico prior to implementing MPP 1.0". 1 Left · 1He also ruled that the policy violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of a full and fair hearing, because enrollees in Mexico faced "persecution, torture, and possibly death", and that it violated asylum seekers' statutory right to be represented by a lawyer. 1

Left · 2According to immigration court records cited in the ruling, only about 7% of people in the program had attorneys, compared with 80% of asylum seekers in immigration court overall. 1 2 Left · 1The judge further found a First Amendment violation affecting the legal aid groups and asylum seekers at hearing sites, where attorneys got at most one hour with clients before court and could not speak with people who had not hired them; he said the government pointed to no evidence that the restrictions met a legitimate need. 1 Left · 1The government said it created the program to address what it called a migration crisis at the southern border and to stop what officials viewed as abuse of the asylum system. Human rights groups documented more than 1,000 instances of violence against people in the program, including murder, torture, rape and kidnapping, and Bernal quoted a DHS conclusion that enrollees faced "extreme violence and insecurity at the hands of transnational criminal organizations". 1

Left · 1Immigrants' rights groups that represented the plaintiffs said roughly 1.1% of asylum seekers subjected to the policy were granted asylum or other immigration relief. 2 Left · 1Bernal ordered the government to propose within 21 days how it will notify the asylum seekers covered by the lawsuit, after formally voiding the original program's policies and guidance. 1 Left · 2The Biden administration moved to end the policy, and the Trump administration reinstated it in January 2025. Bernal paused the revived version in April, but a federal appeals court later limited the pause to the Immigrant Defenders Law Center's current and future clients. 1 2

Left · 1The lead plaintiff said the ruling meant "a lot to finally have this recognition that what the United States government did to us was illegal". Margaret Cargioli of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center said "no administration should ever be permitted to repeat these violations". 2 Left · 1The Independent also noted a separate Supreme Court decision this summer, written by Justice Samuel Alito, allowing border officials to block asylum seekers at ports of entry they consider overwhelmed; Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that "more people will die". 2 Left · 1The coverage available does not include a response from the Trump administration to the ruling or say whether it will appeal. 1