Court Blocks 'Remain In Mexico' Policy In California, Arizona

The transcript discusses the 'Remain in Mexico' policy, which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their U.S. immigration hearings. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this policy violates federal law, but temporarily suspended the injunction after the Justice Department warned of a potential rush at the border. The court later reaffirmed its decision, allowing the injunction to take effect in Arizona and California, while granting a delay for Supreme Court review. The policy has affected around 60,000 asylum seekers, many of whom live in dangerous conditions in Mexican border cities.

What was the main reason the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the administration's policy?

• It was unpopular with the public.

• It violated federal law.

• It was deemed too costly.

• It was ineffective in reducing border crossings.

Why did the court temporarily suspend the injunction against the policy?

• To allow more time for public opinion.

• To prevent a rush of asylum seekers at the border.

• To gather more evidence.

• To consult with international bodies.

Which states were affected by the court's decision to allow the injunction to take effect?

• Nevada and Utah

• Texas and New Mexico

• Arizona and California

• Oregon and Washington

What was the administration's response to the court's decision regarding the injunction?

• They requested the Supreme Court to review the case.

• They sought international support.

• They decided to abandon the policy.

• They immediately implemented the injunction.

What challenges do asylum seekers face while waiting in Mexico under the policy?

• Increased risks of violence and kidnappings.

• Lack of basic necessities.

• Limited access to legal representation.

• All of the above.