A new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule has drawn a sharp legal challenge from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who says the policy unlawfully fast-tracks asylum seekers into removal proceedings without first giving them an interview.

The rule, introduced under the Trump administration, changes how DHS handles asylum cases. Instead of allowing asylum seekers to go through an interview stage before their claims are assessed, the policy places them directly into expedited removal proceedings. Bonta argues this shortcut violates the law and denies applicants a basic procedural step in the asylum process.

"We will always fight back against cruel immigration policy," Bonta said in announcing California's opposition to the rule.

Who the rule affects

The policy applies to asylum seekers who arrive at the United States border and request protection. Under the changed procedure, these individuals can be moved into removal proceedings without the interview that previously formed part of the screening process. For migrants seeking asylum, this means their cases advance to a removal hearing faster, with fewer procedural checkpoints along the way.

Bonta contends that skipping the interview stage strips asylum seekers of a meaningful chance to explain their fear of persecution or return, a core protection built into U.S. asylum law.

California's position

The California Attorney General's office describes the DHS rule as unlawful, arguing the federal government cannot bypass statutory asylum procedures through regulation. Bonta has positioned California in direct opposition to the policy, continuing the state's pattern of legally challenging Trump-era immigration measures.

His statement signals that California intends to use litigation to block or narrow the rule's application.

What changes in practice

Under the new rule:

• Asylum seekers are placed into removal proceedings without an asylum interview.
• The screening step that previously allowed applicants to present their case before an immigration officer is removed from the process.
• Cases move faster toward a removal decision, compressing the timeline asylum seekers have to prepare claims.

Critics of the approach say speed comes at the cost of accuracy, because officers deciding cases lose the opportunity to question applicants directly before proceedings begin.

What affected individuals should do

Asylum seekers and their representatives should track official DHS and Department of Justice communications for the rule's current implementation status, since legal challenges like California's can pause or alter how a policy is applied. The official Federal Register notice and guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) remain the authoritative sources for procedural requirements.

This article reports on a policy dispute and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals with active asylum cases should consult a qualified immigration attorney or accredited representative.

The broader picture

The dispute is the latest clash between California and the federal government over immigration enforcement. Attorney General Bonta has repeatedly taken legal action against Trump administration policies affecting immigrants, and his office frames the new DHS rule as part of a pattern of measures it considers cruel and unlawful.

The outcome of the challenge will determine whether asylum seekers continue to receive an interview before removal proceedings, or whether the fast-track procedure stands.