The Trump Administration’s Indefensible Legal Defense of Its Asylum Ban: Taking a Wrecking Ball to International Law

Oona Hathaway writes on Just Security “The Trump administration has finally made public its legal justification for its decision to halt asylum processing during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is embarrassingly bad. Its brief back-of-the-hand dismissal of the United States’ international law obligations is particularly wrong and dangerous—and could have ramifications far beyond the Asylum Ban itself.”  

Hathaway goes on to explain:

“Here’s the entire justification from the administration of the international law basis for the asylum ban:

International Law Obligations: Stopping the introduction of people and articles from COVID-19-risky locations is indispensable to protecting our public health and the national security of the United States. The Administration’s policy comports with our domestic law obligations concerning asylum seekers. As for our international obligations, the Supreme Court has noted that neither the United States nor any State or municipality has any legal obligation to conform its conduct to international treaties that are not self-executing or otherwise implemented into domestic law by an Act of Congress. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 504—06 (2008); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888).

Yes, that’s it. As we will see, that’s an utterly inadequate and inaccurate assessment of the relevant international law obligations.”

KJ