[U: 09.09.2019] In East Bay III, The Excellent ACLU Brief Is Now On File: Speaking Of UNIFORM Immigration Law And Policies.

As of this morning, 09.09.2019 -- the injunction is again in place, nationwide. So the below advice no longer applies. Cross in New Mexico or Texas, as well. End update.

I am a little surprised that American federal appellate courts have reached the point (in at least one instance), where the parties must explain why a single, unified standard of nationwide applicability, related to immigration and naturalization matters -- is required, under our founding documents, but here we are.

The trial court record has now been supplemented, with more than adequate evidence and citations to controlling legal authority -- to allow the nationwide injunction to be restored. I predict it will be, shortly. Do see my specific advice to people crossing our borders, without papers, in the mean time. [It is also reprinted in running text, at the bottom of this post.]

Here's a bit of the fine ACLU brief -- and the full 19 page PDF:

. . . .[A]s the Ninth Circuit and this Court explained in the first East Bay case, “the scope of [a] remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the. . . violation,” and “not by the geographical extent of the plaintiff.” East Bay II, 2018 WL 8807133, at *24 (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 270 (1977) and Califano v. Yamasaki, 422 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)); East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump (“East Bay I”), 349 F. Supp. 3d 838, 866 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (same). This principle is “well-settled.” Milliken, 433 U.S. at 281.

This Court and the Ninth Circuit concluded that the first asylum ban was likely unlawful on its face, and not merely in its application to specific plaintiffs, and so enjoined it nationwide. See East Bay I, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 867 (“Because the Court here concludes as a preliminary matter that the Rule is unlawful because it conflicts with the INA, it is unlawful as applied to anyone.”); East Bay II, 2018 WL 8807133, at *4, 17-23, 24. As was true in that case, the Rule here is unlawful on its face, and not merely in its application to specific plaintiffs. . . .

“. . .Because this case implicates immigration policy, a nationwide injunction was necessary to give Plaintiffs a full expression of their rights.”, rev’d on other grounds, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018); Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2017); “[A] fragmented immigration policy would run afoul of the constitutional and statutory requirement for uniform immigration law and policy.”; see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2015); rejecting the government’s request that the injunction be confined to specific states because “the Constitution requires ‘an uniform Rule of Naturalization’; Congress has instructed that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly’; and the Supreme Court has described immigration policy as ‘a comprehensive and unified system’”. . . . [Editor's note: parens omitted.]

Now you know -- onward. Do stay tuned. . . but my watch word -- and considered advice -- now: you may now cross along the California or Arizona portions any stretch of the US - Mexico border, and. . . avoid (for a few weeks, at least) the Texas and New Mexico stretches. . . as the injunction still prevents Trumpian lawlessness in California and Arizona -- within the Ninth Circuit. Not so, Texas and New Mexico, for now at least. Thus, you'll be in better shape, legally, should you get end up getting caught, crossing. No matter what -- (and no matter where you cross, if caught) immediately claim asylum, by citing a fear of persecution if you are returned. Now you know.

नमस्ते