In the latest episode of "Politics Gone Wild," the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights organizations have filed a federal complaint against President Joe Biden’s new executive order limiting access to asylum. Yes, you read that right: the president that ran a campaign promising a more humane approach to immigration is now facing lawsuits over an asylum rule that some might confuse with a fortress-building strategy from the medieval era.

The executive order essentially says, "No asylum for you!" to migrants who cross into the U.S. between ports of entry when encounters at the border hit an undefined “certain threshold” (sources: ABC News, CNN). It's like trying to get into a VIP club only to be told, “Sorry, you didn’t use the velvet-rope entrance.”

The ACLU argues that this executive action is a "blatant violation" of both U.S. immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act (according to ABC News and CNN). They might as well have added, “You can’t just rewrite laws because you feel like it, Joe.”

Joining the circus, sorry, civil rights lawsuit, are two Texas-based organizations, the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES, who have also decided enough is enough (sources: ABC News, CNN). Their legal briefs practically scream, “Esto es una locura.”

Interestingly, the lawsuit does not seek emergency relief at this point (sources: ABC News, CNN). This is more of a “Hey, we need to talk,” rather than an urgent 3 AM phone call demanding immediate action. Maybe they’re just trying to stay classy and reserve the drama for the courtroom.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas isn’t sweating it. He defended the legality of the executive action and—like a seasoned chess player (or a half-decent tarot card reader)—anticipated the lawsuit from the ACLU (ABC News, CNN). He also flaunted the rule’s increased screening standards and its exceptions, which are only triggered by medical emergencies or imminent threats to safety. Because nothing screams compassion like, “We’ll take you if you’re literally on fire.”

The new rule doesn’t just raise the bar; it adds spikes and electric fencing. Asylum seekers must now demonstrate a 'reasonable probability' of persecution or torture (according to ABC News). This sounds less like a humanitarian guideline and more like an obscure Mensa test requirement.

There are some silver linings, or at least tarnished tin ones. Unaccompanied minors are exempt from these restrictions (ABC News). So, children traveling alone on perilous journeys get a pass, which is comforting if you find comfort in the Hunger Games.

Leading the legal cavalry charge is ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who’s quick to compare the rule to a similar Trump-era policy that was struck down by the courts (sources: ABC News, CNN). It’s tough to tell whether that’s meant to shame or motivate—it could go either way in today's political climate.

Current U.S. law allows migrants who reach U.S. soil to apply for asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” (sources: ABC News, CNN). That might make some wonder whether Lady Liberty’s famous welcome speech needs a rewrite to include an asterisk and a footnote.

As this legal drama plays out, one has to wonder if the courts will uphold what some might call basic human compassion, or if they’ll take a cue from Kafka. The odds are anyone’s guess, but one thing is clear: grab your popcorn; this is going to be a legal showdown for the ages.