In a win for the Trump administration, a federal court has ruled on Tuesday that U.S. immigration authorities can make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico until their claims are processed.
Here's what we know
On April 8, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the Trump administration from temporarily returning asylum-seekers to Mexico. Less than a week later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put a stay on the injunction.
Now the 9th Circuit Court has reversed Seeborg's ruling completely. In the ruling, it said that the Department of Homeland Security "is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent a stay because the preliminary injunction takes off the table one of the few congressionally authorized measures available to process the approximately 2,000 migrants who are currently arriving at the Nation's southern border on a daily basis."
Judge Paul Watford did criticize the DHS, however, for its policy of not asking asylum-seekers if they were seeking asylum from Mexico before returning them there to wait for their claim to be processed. He said that the agency had not "offered any rational explanation for this glaring deficiency in its procedures."
Opponents of this move could still appeal to the Supreme Court.
According to the Associated Press, which cited Mexico's immigration agency, U.S. immigration authorities have had 3,267 asylum-seekers from Central America return to Mexico before their claims could be considered. This policy was put in place as a way to handle an increase in the amount of asylum-seeking families entering the United States.
Mexican officials have said that they are not in favor of this policy. Unaccompanied minors and Mexican nationals are exempt from this policy.
The 9th Circuit Court doesn't usually rule in favor of Trump
Trump has criticized the 9th Circuit Court for its rulings against his policies in the past, tweeting in November that it was a "complete and total disaster" and "out of control." He also tweeted that there was "much talk over dividing the 9th Circuit in 2 or 3 Circuits" because it was "too big!"