The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that immigrant rights groups do not have standing to challenge recent asylum restrictions at the southern border, claiming the groups' allegations do not demonstrate legal harm. In a filing on Wednesday, the DOJ stated that the groups’ assertion of "pocketbook injuries" and their claim that the restrictions hinder their ability to serve asylum seekers lacks merit, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court had previously dismissed similar standing theories in an abortion medication case.

The DOJ further argued that the groups’ claims are unsupported by evidence. "Nowhere do the organizational plaintiffs state that they are unable to represent asylum seekers — indeed, their declarations state that they continue to do so," the DOJ emphasized in its response. The department noted that the groups' argument about being unable to perform core activities such as providing legal representation to asylum seekers does not meet the legal criteria for standing.

The case revolves around rules that block asylum claims for individuals crossing the U.S. southern border between ports of entry and require noncitizens to schedule appointments through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) CBP One mobile app in order to be eligible for asylum. An interim final rule issued in June called for the restrictions to remain until illegal border crossings drop below 1,500 per day for seven consecutive days, a threshold later extended to 28 days in September.

In support of its bid for summary judgment, the DOJ defended the asylum restrictions, dismissing claims that the rules were arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the government’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The DOJ also addressed concerns raised by the groups about the dangers asylum seekers face in northern Mexico, asserting that the government had reasonably considered these risks and concluded that its actions would improve the immigration system and create safer pathways for migrants, including the use of the CBP One app.

The DOJ responded to criticism of the CBP One app, emphasizing that it is available in the primary languages of the nationalities seeking asylum at the southern border and continues to be updated to meet demand. The department also countered the groups' argument that the app's promotion was inadequate, pointing out that demand for appointments has exceeded availability, indicating widespread awareness.

Additionally, the government continued to defend a rule requiring noncitizens facing expedited removal to manifest fear of persecution or torture without being asked, in order to be referred for a credible fear interview. The DOJ pushed back against claims that this rule was unlawful, asserting that the Immigration and Nationality Act places the responsibility on the noncitizen to indicate any fear or intention to apply for asylum. The DOJ argued that the rule provided a reasonable and flexible process, allowing noncitizens to express such fears at any point during the expedited removal process.

The government also responded to concerns that immigration officers were ignoring claims of fear under the new rule. The DOJ stated that while these concerns had been raised, no substantiated evidence of widespread misconduct had been presented, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had not received significant complaints through its established reporting channels.

The case, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Immigrant rights groups, led by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy organizations, have not yet commented publicly on the DOJ’s filing. The federal government is represented by attorneys from the DOJ’s Civil Division.