Attorneys General Opposed New Asylum Rule
A 21-state coalition challenged a Department of Homeland Security rule that redirects asylum cases to immigration courts.
Updated on Sept. 30, 2026 in Immigration
Live Poll
Should asylum applicants receive an interview before being referred to immigration court for removal proceedings?
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined 20 other attorneys general in formally opposing a new Department of Homeland Security interim final rule. The policy bypasses standard asylum officer interviews by referring applicants directly into adversarial immigration court proceedings.
Why it matters
The coalition argues that the rule violates federal law, places a significant burden on state residents, and strips away essential protections for unaccompanied children. Critics contend the shift forces vulnerable populations into a system where denial rates for asylum claims reached 94% in June 2026.
The coalition includes attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia. The rule affects roughly 130,000 annual applicants and up to 444,000 pending cases, while 44% of total asylum seekers currently in the U.S. are classified as torture survivors.
The players
William Tong
William Tong is the Attorney General of Connecticut who led the coalition in challenging the new federal asylum directive.
Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security is the federal agency responsible for issuing the interim final rule governing asylum application processing.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is the component of the Department of Homeland Security that processes asylum applications and conducts initial interviews.
Executive Office for Immigration Review
The Executive Office for Immigration Review is the agency within the Department of Justice that manages the nation's immigration courts.
The details
The rule permits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to send asylum applications directly to the Executive Office for Immigration Review. This shift removes the non-adversarial interview process, forcing applicants into removal proceedings where Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors argue against their claims.
Timeline
In June 2026, the asylum claim denial rate in immigration court reached 94%.
On September 30, 2026, Attorney General Tong submitted the formal opposition letter.
Political Context
Proponents of the asylum rule argue it addresses systemic processing delays and clarifies immigration enforcement authority. Conversely, the coalition contends that bypassing non-adversarial interviews undermines established protections for vulnerable groups like those outlined in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
Residents may see an increase in local state resource allocation if these cases proceed through adversarial courts, as states often provide support services for asylum seekers. The changes could also alter the legal obligations of entities providing aid to families navigating the immigration system.
The takeaway
This legal challenge highlights the growing friction between state-level legal authorities and federal immigration enforcement policies. Stakeholders should monitor upcoming judicial rulings as these could fundamentally alter how asylum seekers interact with the immigration court system.
Further reading
Learn more about the federal policy debate by visiting the Immigration section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by CT News Junkie.
Live Poll
Should asylum applicants receive an interview before being referred to immigration court for removal proceedings?
