In a significant blow to the Biden administration's strategy on managing the southern border, a federal judge on Tuesday struck down a stringent new asylum policy that officials had deemed crucial. The rule, which had been in effect since May 12, aimed to disqualify most individuals from applying for asylum if they crossed into the United States without first securing an appointment at an official port of entry or proving they sought legal protection in another country along the way.

Immigrant advocacy groups, who took legal action against the administration, argued that the policy violated U.S. law and put migrants at a heightened risk of extortion and violence during their prolonged stays in Mexican border towns. They also claimed that the rule resembled a Trump administration policy that had been blocked in 2019 by the same judge, Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Judge Tigar, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, stayed his order for 14 days to allow the Biden administration time to appeal. In his ruling, he declared the policy "both substantively and procedurally invalid." This victory for immigrant advocates was seen as a successful strategy, as returning to the same judge who had previously found the Trump administration's rule unlawful paid off.

The Biden administration had introduced the asylum rule in May when it lifted the public health measure known as Title 42, which swiftly expelled illegal crossers. Since then, the number of apprehended migrants at the southern border has drastically declined, with fewer than 100,000 people being arrested in June, the lowest figure since February 2021.

However, the administration argued in court that the rule had prevented chaos at the border and warned that unlawful crossings would spike if it were rescinded. They claimed that it would strain government resources and create dangerous conditions, such as overcrowding in migrant processing facilities. The administration also pointed to other programs it had implemented that offered alternatives for asylum seekers excluded by the rule. These factors, combined with Mexican authorities intercepting and returning some migrants to Guatemala, made it uncertain how the judge's ruling would impact migration levels.

While civil rights groups celebrated the judge's decision, they emphasized that migrants remained vulnerable as long as the rule remained in place. Katrina Eiland, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, stated that each day the Biden administration prolonged the fight over the policy, individuals seeking safe harbor for their families were left in grave danger.

The Biden administration now faces the possibility of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit putting Judge Tigar's ruling on hold while the government appeals. If the case proceeds, it could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, adding further complexity to the issue of asylum policy and immigration.

As campaigning for the presidential election next year gets underway, a potential surge in migrants could open President Biden up to attacks from Republicans. Legal experts noted that this particular policy did not differ significantly from the one introduced by former President Donald J. Trump.

Despite the ruling, the Biden administration's new programs have allowed several hundred thousand people to legally enter the United States this year, provided they have a financial sponsor or an active visa application to reunite with relatives. These programs, along with other factors, have contributed to the recent decrease in unauthorized crossings, making it unclear how the ruling will ultimately impact migration levels.