A group of sixteen states, led by Texas, are questioning whether border asylum officers can approve asylum requests. They argue that these officers are just employees and shouldn’t have that power; only appointed officials should be able to review and approve these requests.

The states claim that a rule allowing asylum officers to grant asylum goes against the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. They believe that asylum applications from people in expedited removal should be handled by immigration judges. They reference a Supreme Court ruling that says these duties require appointment as an officer.

Additionally, the states argue that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Homeland Security Act. These laws say that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has the final say on asylum decisions during expedited removal. They also say the policy is unfair and poorly explained, as it does not outline its costs to the states.

This rule was introduced by the Biden administration in 2022 to help with the large backlog of immigration cases. The White House has suggested that the lawsuits should be dismissed. In their arguments, the administration claims there is no type of injury to the states that supports a lawsuit Two cases were filed, one by Louisiana and Florida and the other by this group of states led by Texas. In the Florida and Louisiana case, a U.S. District Judge agreed to dismiss it. However, a Texas judge has allowed the challenge to move forward.

ILBSG closely monitors news about U.S. immigration. If you have questions about employment-based or family-based immigration, feel free to reach out to us. Our experienced attorneys are dedicated to understanding our client’s unique situations to ensure they receive expert guidance.