The Trump administration scored a court win on Friday as a judge ruled the administration can fast-track immigration cases.
Immigration advocates sued the Trump administration last month, arguing that the asylum process should take “years” to conclude and that lawyers want “at least a year” to prepare for court hearings while applicants remain in the United States, The Daily Signal previously reported.
However, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols of the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee, said in his opinion that immigration law is clear on the timing of cases.
“Immigration judges are directed to resolve cases ‘in a timely and impartial manner’ and, absent exceptional circumstances, should complete administrative adjudication of an asylum application within 180 days after the application is filed,” his 27-page opinion said. He also ruled that plaintiffs “likely lack standing“ in the case.
Plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of having a “Somali fast-track policy,” giving lawyers a compressed timeline of just four months or less to prepare for hearings Somali asylum applicants. They argued the timeline was “essentially impossible.”
However, Nichols didn’t buy the argument from the Hines Immigration Law firm and the Advocates for Human Rights, both based in Minnesota, which sued the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review.
“The unrebutted record does suggest some form of coordinated effort directed only at nondetained Somali aliens. But the effects of that effort are felt most directly by the aliens themselves, who are not parties before the Court, and who have their own avenues to challenge removal decisions that violate their constitutional or statutory rights,” he determined.
“The organizations bringing this lawsuit allege different and more muted harms, which are not clearly redressable by the Court and which do not seem irreparable.“
The plaintiffs were represented by Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that has sued the Trump administration on multiple fronts. In a joint statement Friday, they expressed disappointment.
“The Somali fast-track policy singles out one nationality and forces people through rushed immigration proceedings that make it nearly impossible to secure counsel or fairly present asylum claims,” the joint statement says.
“By allowing this policy to continue, Somali asylum seekers remain at risk of being pushed through a system that denies them the time and support needed to navigate complex legal proceedings,” the statement later adds.
In the complaint, the two plaintiffs argued there is precedent for a lengthy process for immigration cases.
“In the past, IJs [immigration judges] have scheduled merits hearings for as far as two or three years out, with no indication that their calendars could not ‘go out’ that far,” the plaintiffs’ complaint says.
The plaintiffs’ complaint argues the policy “substantially impedes” their work by speeding up the timeline to prepare for a hearing, leaving attorneys in some cases with “almost no time to gather and submit evidence.”
The judge determined, “Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that their injuries are likely to be redressed by relief that the Court has power to enter.”
