Join Fox News to access this content

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos, and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you agree to the Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, including our Financial Incentive Notice. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, in an extraordinary dissent to a motion related to the Biden administration’s rule limiting asylum, sharply criticized the administration for what he called “collusion” with an immigration activist group to freeze Rule.

The case involves the Biden administration’s “legal pathways circumvention” rule, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last year when it ended Title 42. The rule limits asylum claims, excluding those who crossed illegally. and they did not request asylum in a country through which they have already traveled.

The administration said it was a key part of its efforts to control the crisis at the border, but it was soon blocked by a lawsuit filed by a liberal activist group. The administration then appealed that decision. However, both sides filed an appeal to suspend it pending settlement discussions.

7.2 MILLION ENTER THE US UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, A GREATER THAN THE POPULATION OF 36 STATES

Migrants cross into Texas at the southern border

A U.S. Border Patrol agent monitors more than 2,000 migrants at a field processing center on December 18, 2023 in Eagle Pass, Texas. (John Moore/Getty Images)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed, but Judge Lawrence VanDyke, an appointee of former President Trump, dissented from the decision and criticized the administration’s decision to seek a settlement.

“For months, the rule was so important that ‘any interruption’ in its implementation, even for a short period of time, would cripple the executive’s border response. This panel made decisions based on those representations. Now, the government implies that the rule en After all, it’s not that important. In fact, the government is now “engaged in discussions” that could result in the rule’s demise. What?”

He said the Biden administration’s move makes no sense as a legal measure and suspects politics are at play.

“At the very least, it appears that the administration and its enemies on the other side of this case are conspiring to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year,” he said.

He said it appears the administration is “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, deliberately avoiding a final victory that would eventually come later this year, whether from this court or the Supreme Court.”

He also said the government had given no indication of when the settlement suspension would end, assuming the plan could be sometime after November.

He also suggested that the government could be trying to avoid an immigration loss in the courts amid current concerns across the country about the border crisis.

“Leaving these proceedings on hold avoids the possibility of a loss before the Ninth Circuit that could potentially exacerbate problems at the border in the months leading up to the election, a loss even more damaging given that it would be borne by a panel composed primarily of individuals appointed by Democrats, no less,” he said.

BIDEN ADMINISTRATOR WEIGHTS EXECUTIVE ACTION ON BORDER CRISIS, DRAWING FIRE FROM LEFT AND RIGHT

Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced the legal evasion rule last year.

“CNN’s headline practically writes itself: ‘Biden’s immigration enforcement policy shot down by two Clinton appointees,'” he joked.

He also raised the idea that the administration “may be seeking to create a policy that resonates with its base while blaming the courts for the practical results of that policy.”

“Until now, we have been repeatedly assured that the rule is critical to border security. But now, surprisingly, the administration is seeking to drop its defense of the rule, or at least freeze that defense until a more political decision is made. “convenient time,” he said. “Whatever the parties’ true motivations for attempting to stay this case, they have not provided us with a sufficient legal basis for their sudden change of course.”

Judge VanDyke’s criticism could resurface in the coming weeks. The Biden administration is believed to be considering additional executive actions, including aggressive use of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to stop illegal immigrants crossing the border.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

However, former President Trump attempted to use such a measure in 2018 and was blocked by the courts, a fate that could befall President Biden if he attempts a similar measure in 2024.

Fox News Digital has reached out to DHS, the Department of Justice and East Bay, the immigration group, for comment.

By Sam