The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered supplemental briefing in a closely watched immigration case that could reshape asylum law, directing parties to address whether a Biden-era rule restricting asylum claims violates federal statute.
In *Garcia Morales v. Bondi*, the three-judge panel issued an order Tuesday rescheduling oral arguments to March 23, 2026, in Pasadena, California, and requesting additional briefing on a key legal question. The court ordered parties to file supplemental briefs of no more than 15 pages addressing whether the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.33(a), is consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158.
The case involves multiple petitioners: Lester J. Garcia Morales, Sheyla Monroy Tay, and three individuals identified by initials L.J.I.G.M., I.G.M., and J.G.M. They are challenging decisions in immigration proceedings with agency numbers spanning A240-533-133 through A245-371-133. The respondent is Attorney General Pamela Bondi, reflecting the recent change in administration.
The panel hearing the case consists of Circuit Judges Richard A. Paez and Patrick J. Bumatay, along with District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai of the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. The court's decision to order supplemental briefing suggests the judges view the legal question as particularly significant and deserving of additional analysis.
The Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, implemented during the Biden administration, established restrictions on asylum eligibility for individuals who failed to seek protection in transit countries before arriving at the U.S. border. The rule requires asylum seekers to demonstrate they sought protection in at least one country through which they traveled, with limited exceptions for specific circumstances such as severe trauma or persecution based on protected characteristics.
Critics of the rule argue it violates the fundamental principle that individuals have the right to seek asylum regardless of their path to the United States, as established in both domestic and international law. They contend the regulation conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act's asylum provisions, which do not contain similar transit country requirements.
Supporters of the rule maintain it encourages orderly migration and reduces incentives for dangerous border crossings while preserving asylum protections for those who genuinely need them. The Biden administration implemented the regulation as part of broader efforts to manage migration flows at the southern border.
The court's order inviting amicus curiae briefs signals recognition that the case has implications extending beyond the individual petitioners. The panel granted leave for any person or entity to file amicus briefs pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a), with the same 15-page limit and March 13, 2026 deadline as the parties' supplemental briefs.
This invitation is likely to draw participation from immigration advocacy organizations, civil rights groups, and potentially state governments with interests in immigration policy. Amicus briefs often provide courts with broader policy perspectives and additional legal arguments that can influence judicial decision-making in cases with wide-reaching implications.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction covers immigration-heavy states including California, Arizona, Nevada, and others, making its immigration decisions particularly influential. The circuit has previously issued rulings that have shaped national immigration policy, and this case appears positioned to continue that trend.
The timing of the case coincides with renewed focus on immigration policy under the new administration. Attorney General Bondi's role as respondent reflects the transition from the previous administration, though the underlying legal questions about the rule's validity remain unchanged.
The specific focus on whether the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule conflicts with statutory asylum provisions suggests the court is examining fundamental questions about executive authority in immigration law. Courts have historically scrutinized agency regulations that appear to narrow statutory protections, particularly in the immigration context where individual liberty interests are at stake.
The case's designation "FOR PUBLICATION" indicates the court intends its eventual decision to serve as binding precedent within the circuit and persuasive authority elsewhere. This designation underscores the legal significance the panel attaches to the underlying issues.
The March 2026 timeline for briefs and argument means a decision could emerge in spring or summer 2026, potentially influencing immigration policy discussions and enforcement practices. Given the case's complexity and the court's request for supplemental briefing, the eventual ruling is likely to provide detailed analysis of the intersection between regulatory authority and statutory asylum protections.
The outcome could affect thousands of asylum seekers who have been subject to the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule since its implementation. A ruling finding the regulation inconsistent with federal law could require reconsideration of cases decided under the rule, while an affirmation could solidify its continued application in immigration proceedings.