On Wednesday, a federal court declared the Trump administration’s implementation of the Remain in Mexico policy unlawful and ordered that it be vacated and set aside. The Court found that the policy violated U.S. immigration law by obstructing asylum seekers’ rights to apply for protection, access counsel, and obtain a full and fair hearing, as well as the plaintiff organizations’ ability to provide meaningful legal services.
The case, Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Mullin, is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of two legal services organizations, Immigrant Defenders Law Center and Jewish Family Service of San Diego, and a group of individual plaintiffs who represent a larger class of asylum seekers who had their cases terminated or received final deportation orders after being deprived of meaningful access to the U.S. asylum process as a result of the Remain in Mexico policy. The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Innovation Law Lab, the National Immigration Project, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Arnold & Porter LLP.
“Today is an important day for those of us who were in [Remain in Mexico],” said Francisco Doe,* a named plaintiff in the case. “We went through horrible, heavy things, and it means a lot to finally have this recognition that what the United States government did to us was illegal.”
Launched in 2019 under the first Trump administration, the Remain in Mexico policy forced people seeking asylum to await their U.S. immigration court dates while stranded in perilous conditions in Mexico. As the Court affirmed this week, the policy “severely curtailed” asylum seekers’ access to a fair legal process. Only seven percent of people subjected to Remain in Mexico were ultimately able to find legal counsel, and conditions in Mexico were so dangerous that many people were unable to return to the United States for their immigration court hearings. Those languishing in Mexico routinely fell prey to grave violence. Some were even kidnapped by cartels en route to the border for their immigration court hearings. Unsurprisingly, just 1.1 percent were ultimately granted asylum or other relief from removal, and many were ordered deported in absentia because they could not make it to immigration court. Asylum seekers from otherwise similar backgrounds were granted relief at a rate 26 times greater than those subject to Remain in Mexico.
Last year, the administration sought to reimplement Remain in Mexico, despite its well-documented failures and the government’s implementation of other policies that have suspended most asylum processing at the southern border. Immigrant Defenders Law Center challenged the reimplementation, which has been partially stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The Trump administration treats human beings fleeing persecution as people to punish rather than people to protect. Through ‘Remain in Mexico,’ it forced human beings, including families with young children, into further danger, exposing them to violence, abuse, and exploitation while obstructing our attorneys’ ability to defend them when facing our complex immigration system,” said Margaret Cargioli, Advocacy and External Relations Director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef). “No administration should ever be permitted to repeat these violations. As this administration intensifies its attacks on immigrant communities, this country must uphold the right to seek asylum and its responsibility to welcome people fleeing persecution. We have seen nothing but cruelty towards immigrants from the Trump administration and ImmDef will continue to fight against these injustices.”
“During the implementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, our pro bono attorneys saw firsthand the impact that it had on the people who came to our border seeking safety,” said Luis Gonzalez, The Gess Family Foundation Executive Director of Immigration and Refugee Services at Jewish Family Service of San Diego. “Families, including children, were stranded in dangerous conditions, cut off from lawyers, and forced to choose between their lives and their day in court. Children were forced to experience severe physical and emotional harm. We continue to stand by people seeking safety. The Court’s decision affirms their legal right to be heard, to have their circumstances considered fairly, and to pursue the protection that could change the course of their lives.”
“The Remain in Mexico policy was a humanitarian catastrophe and a travesty of justice,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “The policy deprived vulnerable families, children, and adults of their rights while exposing them to grave harm in some of the most dangerous regions of Mexico. As the Court rightly concluded, expecting people to litigate their immigration cases while stranded in such conditions was ‘untenable’ and plainly illegal.”
"People asking for protection should get a fair hearing and meaningful access to legal representation," said Rosa Saavedra Vanacore, Associate Legal Director at Innovation Law Lab. “The court agreed that Remain in Mexico took that away.”
“This order is a long-awaited confirmation of what our individual plaintiffs have known since the very first day they were sent back to Mexico: the Remain in Mexico policy was unlawful and cruel,” said Stephanie Alvarez-Jones, Southeast Regional Attorney at the National Immigration Project. “As the Court concluded, the policy violated their right to legal representation and basic fairness, and subjected them and thousands of others to dangerous conditions in Mexico.”
*Francisco Doe is the pseudonym the court permitted to protect the plaintiff’s safety.