In this Note, the authors Reeve Churchill and Wislande Francique will examine the changing interpretation of asylee rights by analyzing the Honduras Deal, the 9th District Court case East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr (2020), and Trump v. Hawaii. The Honduras Deal is evidence of the Trump Administration’s harsh restrictions towards asylum seekers. This note will contextualize the Honduras Deal through the examination of two court cases: East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr and Trump v. Hawaii. In the latter case, the Supreme Court ruled that the President has the power to bar entry to any group of immigrants that he feels are dangerous to American interests.

In East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr, the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant argued that the travel ban ignored U.S. Code § 1158, and violated the Immigrant and Naturalization Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. Though the East Bay Sanctuary won the case in this Court, the decision was appealed and will possibly be argued before the Supreme Court. This note will argue that if this case reaches the Supreme Court, it is likely that the justices will overturn the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court based on the precedent set in Trump v. Hawaii. The effects of such a decision will impact the ability of asylum seekers to receive asylum in the United States, establishing a clear precedent for the future of asylum seekers in the United States.