Brown Joins 21 Attorneys General Opposing Federal Rule That Skips Asylum Interviews

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined 20 other attorneys general in formally objecting to a federal rule that lets immigration officials send asylum applications to immigration court without ever interviewing the applicant.

The 21 attorneys general submitted their objection as a public comment letter on September 28, 2026, the final day of the comment period. A comment letter is not a lawsuit, and no court has been asked to block the rule. The attorneys general are asking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to withdraw the rule itself.

What the Rule Changes

DHS put the interim final rule into effect on July 28, 2026, without first taking public comment. The DHS rule lets U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services refer an affirmative asylum application straight to the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review based on the paperwork alone.

An affirmative asylum application is one filed by a person who is not already in removal proceedings. Under the previous system, an asylum officer interviewed the applicant in a non-adversarial setting before deciding the case. The new rule removes the regulatory language stating that an applicant has a right to that interview.

Applicants referred to immigration court face a government attorney arguing against their claim. DHS estimates the change could affect as many as 444,000 cases already pending in the immigration court backlog and could produce more than 132,000 interview-free referrals a year.

What the Attorneys General Argue

The 25-page letter argues the rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, conflicts with federal law, and was improperly issued without notice and comment. The attorneys general raise eight specific objections, reproduced in full in the release below.

Unaccompanied children are the sharpest point in the letter. The attorneys general contend that the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act guarantees unaccompanied children a non-adversarial USCIS process, and that routing those children into immigration court strips them of a protection Congress wrote into statute.

The attorneys general also cite the Center for Victims of Torture’s finding that 44 percent of asylum seekers, asylees and refugees in the United States are torture survivors. According to the attorneys general, the asylum denial rate in immigration court reached 94 percent in June 2026.

Why This Lands in Montgomery County

Montgomery County has proportionally far more immigrant residents than Maryland or the country as a whole. About 34 percent of county residents were born outside the United States, roughly 365,000 people, according to Census Bureau survey data. The statewide share is about 17 percent and the national share is about 15 percent.

Montgomery County also pays for some of the legal help this rule would lean on. The County Council first appropriated money for legal representation in deportation cases in 2018, and the county budget carries a provision for screening and legal representation in deportation cases. Montgomery County has designated Ayuda, HIAS, Kids in Need of Defense and Luminus Network as its providers under that provision.

Kids in Need of Defense represents unaccompanied children, the group the attorneys general single out. The attorneys general argue the rule will strain state-funded legal service providers, healthcare clinics and immigrant integration resources in states like Maryland.

What Happens Next

The comment period closed on September 28, 2026. DHS is required to consider the comments it received and must respond to significant ones, but the rule stays in effect while that happens. DHS has not announced whether it will revise or withdraw the rule.

Brown has joined multistate actions against federal immigration and data policies before. In August 2026 he sued the Trump administration over a federal demand for Maryland commercial driver’s license records.

The full release from the Office of the Attorney General follows.

---

Press Release: Office of the Attorney General of Maryland

Published September 30, 2026. Reproduced in full from the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland.

Attorney General Brown Opposes Unlawful DHS Rule Fast-Tracking Asylum Seekers Into Removal Proceedings Without an Interview

BALTIMORE, MD – Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, as part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general, submitted a comment letter opposing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) new rule limiting affirmative asylum applicants’ opportunity to participate in an asylum officer interview and explain why they cannot safely return home.

The interim final rule (IFR) permits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to refer these asylum applications directly to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), placing applicants in adversarial removal proceedings in immigration court. DHS estimates the rule could result in roughly 130,000 future affirmative asylum applicants being referred without an interview each year and could affect up to 444,000 cases already pending in EOIR’s asylum backlog. The IFR could further strain an already lengthy process for asylum claims, potentially leading to significant delays or case dismissals that would take an additional financial and mental toll on individuals and families navigating the asylum system.

The IFR pushes asylum applicants directly into an adversarial court proceeding, where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor argues against their claims. In June 2026, the asylum denial rate in immigration court reached 94%. Further, because immigration judges now frequently deny asylum claims without giving applicants a full merits hearing, many may not receive a day in court at all. According to the Center for Victims of Torture, 44% of asylum seekers, asylees, and refugees in the U.S. are torture survivors, and the interview portion of the immigration process provides crucial time to explain why an applicant is seeking asylum, particularly for unaccompanied children and applicants who cannot afford legal representation.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Brown and the coalition argue the IFR violates federal law and is particularly harmful for unaccompanied children, who, under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, are entitled to have their asylum claims heard through USCIS’s non-adversarial adjudicatory process, not EOIR. Attorney General Brown and the coalition further assert that the IFR:

• Ignores the evidentiary importance of a non-adversarial asylum interview and does not justify departing from decades of policy;
• Harms state residents by increasing the risk of detention and removal, disrupting employment authorization, and making legal representation even more difficult to obtain for many asylum applicants;
• Will strain state-funded legal service providers, healthcare clinics, and immigrant integration resources, as well as undermine law enforcement interests;
• Strips unaccompanied children of the non-adversarial asylum process Congress guaranteed them under federal law, forcing children who often have no attorney to navigate an adversarial system built for adults;
• Increases the psychological distress experienced by asylum seekers and their families, compounding trauma many have already experienced fleeing persecution;
• Undermines tax revenue and business income, given immigrants’ critical role in the workforce and broader economy;
• Abandons compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act by circumventing notice and comment requirements when the rule went immediately into effect on July 28, 2026; and
• Fails to consider reasonable alternatives, such as limiting the rule to future applicants, preserving interviews for unaccompanied children, or hiring more qualified asylum officers.

In sending this letter, Attorney General Brown joins the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

---