Las Americas v. DHS - District Court

[ARCHIVED - September 2025]

This case, originating under the Biden administration, was brought by immigrants’ rights groups (the ACLU, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Jenner & Block LLP, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP)) on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and individual plaintiffs against the Biden Administration for issuing a proclamation, an Interim Rule, and Implementation Guidance accompanying the rule in June 2024 that severely restricted access to asylum protections for noncitizens arriving between ports of entry at the southern border, in violation of the asylum statute.

The Interim Rule became final in October 2024 and, among other things, disqualified an individual from seeking asylum if the individual did not schedule an appointment through the CBP One application; required asylum seekers to affirmatively manifest a fear of removal to qualify for a credible fear interview (a prerequisite for seeking asylum in the United States); and established a four-hour window for asylum-seekers to consult with an attorney (where previously asylum-seekers had 24 hours). For more information about the complaint and subsequent case history, please take a look at the ACLU’s summary of the case here.

On January 20, 2025—Inauguration Day—President Trump terminated the use of the CBP One application (“CBP One”), a smartphone application which under the Rule at issue in this case was the only way for individuals arriving at the southern border to be able to exercise their right to seek asylum. As a result of this action, no CBP One appointments will move forward from this point on, and all existing appointments have been cancelled without notice—including for individual plaintiffs in this case—essentially completely eviscerating the asylum process at the border. Based on this action, the same day, the plaintiffs requested an emergency status conference with the parties and court for as soon as January 20, and an expedited briefing schedule regarding the impact of President Trump’s action.

Judge Contreras held a status conference with the parties on January 21, setting a briefing schedule for the parties to address the impact of President Trump’s actions and a briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the government to parole for individual plaintiffs whose CBP One appointments had been cancelled. On February 6, the court subsequently denied Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO, holding that it did not have the authority to order the government to parole individuals into the United States.

On May 9, 2025, Judge Contreras issued a decision on cross-motions for summary judgment that the parties had filed in 2024, which the parties had supplemented with the briefing ordered by the court in January. The court largely found in favor of the plaintiffs, vacating the Final Rule’s limitation on asylum eligibility, its “manifestation of fear” requirement, and its four-hour consultation window, and also vacated the removal orders and negative fear determinations issued against the named Plaintiffs. But, based on the Rule’s severability provision, the court allowed all other parts of the Final Rule to remain in effect, including, for example, a provision raising the eligibility threshold for statutory withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Plaintiffs subsequently moved the court to alter its judgment to require the federal government to return to the United States individuals who had been wrongfully removed under the challenged policies. The court denied this motion on July 28, 2025, finding that such relief would require an injunction, and that Plaintiffs had failed to establish the permanent injunction factors to support such relief.