Confusion on the Border as Appeals Court Rules Against Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' Policy

The court stayed its decision, however, in order to allow the government time to appeal the ruling.

After a year in which nearly 1 million migrants crossed the southwestern border, jamming processing facilities and defying President Donald Trump’s attempts to curtail immigration, border crossings have dropped sharply in recent months, in part because of the administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, the subject of Friday’s court ruling. The decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, if allowed to stand, would eliminate one of the administration’s key levers for controlling the arrival of new asylum-seekers.

A three-judge panel in San Francisco upheld an injunction blocking the policy, which has required people applying for asylum at the border to wait in Mexico while their claims for protection are reviewed, a process that often takes months or years.

The judges gave lawyers in the case until Monday to respond to the stay.

Since the “Remain in Mexico” restrictions were rolled out early in 2019, more than 59,000 asylum-seekers have been turned back by U.S. authorities into Mexican border cities, where kidnappings and violence have surged. Because shelters in Mexico are scant and overrun, many of the migrants are living in vast tent encampments exposed to the elements. Powerful Mexican drug cartels have moved in to exploit them.

“It’s a resounding rejection,” Judy Rabinovitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, who was the lead lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said of the court’s ruling earlier Friday. She added, “The policy is a disgrace, it’s illegal, it’s morally indefensible, and it needs to stop.”

Chad Wolf, acting secretary of homeland security, said U.S. border officials have continued to process meritorious asylum claims and reduced fraudulent and invalid claims.

“Should this ruling stand, the safety and security of our border communities, international relationships and regional stability is at risk,” he said in a statement.

Friday’s appeals court ruling, before it was stayed, prompted widespread celebration among those who had been fighting the policy, followed by hours of confusion over when and how it might go into effect.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times .