FAIR Moves to Enforce Laken Riley Act
Shows Fifth Circuit it should jumpstart case against Biden’s Asylum Express
WASHINGTON—The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals urging the court to restart a stalled case that Louisiana, Kansas, and other states had brought against the Biden administration’s rule meant to increase the number of aliens receiving asylum.
Before the case reached the Fifth Circuit, the federal district court hearing it concluded that Biden’s rule was unlawful, but it also concluded that the states lacked standing to challenge it because, in the court’s view, the speeded-up asylum process the rule established did not “specifically” harm the states.
While the case was on appeal, the administrations changed, and the Trump administration, now the defendant, moved to have the appeal put in abeyance while it considered what new, better rule to replace the Biden rule with. Over the states’ objection, the court granted the motion.
In January of this year, however, Congress passed the Laken Riley Act, a pro-enforcement law that, among other provisions, directs federal courts to expedite challenges to lax immigration policies “to the greatest extent practicable.” In its brief, FAIR brings this directive to the court’s attention and urges it to take the case out of abeyance and issue a ruling.
“The problem with letting this appeal lie moribund while waiting for a new rule from the Trump administration is that any new and better asylum rule would be immediately challenged and enjoined in some handpicked activist district court,” said Christopher J. Hajec, Deputy General Counsel of FAIR. “That would just keep Biden’s Asylum Express on the books even longer. Also, a Fifth Circuit ruling that the Biden rule is indeed unlawful, and that states do have standing to bring these kinds of cases, would be useful both to the administration and to the country. We hope the court, on its own initiative, heeds the directive of Congress and expedites this case.”
The case is Louisiana v. Bondi, No. 24-30359 (Fifth Circuit).
