The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on a case that could have serious implications on President Biden’s border policy, after the District of Northern California struck down a policy aimed at deterring migrants from entering the country between official ports of entry.

Judge Jon Tigar of the District Court in Northern California on Tuesday ruled against an administration policy that presumes migrants are ineligible for asylum in America if they passed through other countries without seeking asylum in those countries or if they did not enter America through a legal port of entry. 

The policy is one of the administration’s major deterrents for illegal border crossings and the ruling has the potential to reverse the downward trend in illegal border crossing encounters since the end of Title 42 on May 11.

Judge Tigar, though, put the ruling on hold for two weeks to give the administration time to appeal the decision, which it immediately did, sending the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling marked a win for the American Civil Liberties Union, immigrants rights groups, and some Democratic elected officials.

“The ruling is a victory, but each day the Biden administration prolongs the fight over its illegal ban, many people fleeing persecution and seeking safe harbor for their families are instead left in grave danger,” the deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the ACLU, Katrina Eiland, said in a statement.

Ms. Eiland, who argued the case, added that the “promise of America is to serve as a beacon of freedom and hope, and the administration can and should do better to fulfill this promise, rather than perpetuate cruel and ineffective policies that betray it.”

Conservative critics of the ruling, such as the president of the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform, Dan Stein, say the ruling opens the door to “abuse” of the asylum system.

“With Title 42 gone and no mechanism in place to promptly expel even some of the people who enter between ports of entry, a new surge of people crossing illegally could well exceed the records set earlier this year,” Mr. Stein said.

Congressional Republicans have also criticized the administration for making it easier to enter the country legally by making an appointment at a port of entry via a new cellphone app, called CBP One.

The secretary of homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas, defended the rule, saying, “We strongly disagree with today’s ruling and are confident that the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule is lawful.”

“Do not believe the lies of smugglers,” Mr. Mayorkas said in a statement. “Those who fail to use one of the many lawful pathways we have expanded will be presumed ineligible for asylum and, if they do not have a basis to remain, will be subject to prompt removal and a minimum five-year bar on admission.”

In the ruling itself, Judge Tigar wrote that “the rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum.”

The Ninth Circuit Court has previously reaffirmed Judge Tigar’s decisions on similar cases, twice in cases relating to rules written by President Trump’s administration. 

While it’s unknown what effect the ruling will have on border crossings, the policy was a piece of the administration’s plan for deterring crossings between ports of entry. Predicting what might lead to an increase in migration has, though, proved difficult in the past.

Ahead of the end of Title 42, many elected officials and members of the press predicted that its demise would lead to a surge in crossings that did not come to pass.