The Trump administration’s revived Remain in Mexico policy has hit another sizable legal roadblock — this time in the form of a 40-page ruling from a federal judge in California.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jesús Bernal granted summary judgment to Immigrant Defenders Law Center and other challengers, ruling that the original Migrant Protection Protocols, better known as "Remain in Mexico," violated federal law and the constitutional rights of asylum seekers.
JUST UNSEALED: A judge ruled this week that the first Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy illegally subjected thousands of people – many with meritorious asylum claims — to horrifically dangerous and violent conditions and deprived them of access to attorneys. https://t.co/3USioy5ook
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 9, 2026
Bernal didn’t just criticize the way the policy was carried out, either. He vacated and set aside the policies, guidance, memoranda, procedures, and directives used to implement the original program.
That has added import now because, shortly after President Donald Trump returned to office in 2025, his administration reinstated Remain in Mexico using the same basic 2019 framework.
Under the policy, certain migrants arriving at the southern border were returned to Mexico to await their immigration proceedings rather than being permitted to remain in the United States. The challengers argued that, in practice, the program left asylum seekers stranded in dangerous areas of Mexico while making it extraordinarily difficult for them to obtain lawyers, prepare their cases, or even receive reliable notice of their hearings. And Bernal agreed.
The numbers cited in his ruling were notable. While approximately 80 percent of asylum seekers appearing in immigration court had legal representation, only 7 percent of those placed in Remain in Mexico did. Of nearly 68,000 cases, only about 1.1 percent resulted in relief or protection from removal. Similarly situated asylum seekers outside the program received relief at a rate more than 26 times higher.
Bernal concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to adequately consider the dangers migrants would face in Mexico or the cross-border barriers to obtaining legal assistance. He ruled that the policy obstructed the statutory rights to seek asylum and consult counsel, denied migrants a full and fair opportunity to present their cases, and violated First and Fifth Amendment protections.
This ruling obviously is a major loss for the administration — but there is one rather glaring wrinkle: In concluding that he had the authority to vacate the policy across the board, Bernal relied partly on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in National TPS Alliance v. Noem. That court had held that setting aside an agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is not the same thing as issuing an injunction and therefore is not barred by a federal statute restricting lower courts’ power to broadly block certain immigration provisions.
There’s just one problem: Earlier this week, the Supreme Court vacated that 9th Circuit judgment and sent the TPS (Temporary Protected Status) case back for reconsideration.
In other words, Bernal cited as controlling authority a decision that SCOTUS had already wiped off the books two days prior.
To be clear, that doesn’t automatically erase the rest of his ruling. He cited other precedent supporting declaratory relief and temporary stays of agency action, and his findings regarding asylum access, counsel, and due process stand independently of that particular TPS decision.
But the now-vacated citation supported the most consequential part of his order: the sweeping remedy aimed at taking the policy off the books altogether.
The administration will almost certainly seek a stay and appellate review of Bernal's order. One claim also technically remains unresolved, so the case has not reached its final procedural stop.
But for now, Bernal has dealt Remain in Mexico a serious blow — yet handed the administration a conspicuous appellate argument in the very same order. We'll definitely be keeping an eye on this one!
Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to halt President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.