A federal judge ruled on Sept. 9 that an injunction against a controversial Trump administration immigration rule should be restored in Arizona. The judge issued a nationwide injunction in July, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed the administration a partial victory in August when it ruled that the ban should only apply to states that the issuing court held jurisdiction over. The Sept. 9 ruling reinstates the nationwide injunction.

The rule at the center of the legal battle requires asylum seekers to make their claims in the first safe country they enter rather than continuing on to the United States. The rule would virtually eliminate asylum claims as nearly all of them are made by migrants who reach the southern border by traveling through Mexico, which is considered a safe country. President Trump points out that the vast majority of asylum claims are unsuccessful and says the rule is necessary to deter migrants from making a perilous and futile journey.

Administration officials were quick to brand the ruling, which was made by a judge appointed by President Obama, judicial activism. White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told reporters that human traffickers and drug smugglers would likely be celebrating the decision. An American Civil Liberties spokesperson said the ruling would save lives. The ACLU is one of the groups behind the lawsuit challenging the rule. The White House has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

The reason most asylum claims are denied is because asylum seekers are unable to produce evidence of a genuine and credible threat of persecution based on a limited set of factors such as race and religion. Attorneys with U.S. immigration law experience could help asylum seekers to gather the evidence they need and explain the other paths to residence in the United States to those who do not meet the requirements.