To be clear, the new process is entirely illegal and probably unconstitutional. 8 CFR 1240.10(a) - (c) require a hearing where the IJ reads and explains the charging document, takes an oral pleading, determines removability. If they can't sustain, (e) lets DHS add allegations

Once removability is determined, the judge is supposed to ask the respondent to designate the country of removal. Then under (f) the judge identifies alternative country of removal. *Then* under 8 CFR 1240.11(c) the applicant gets to apply for asylum.

You can't apply for asylum from a country that the judge hasn't even identified yet. And lots of cases aren't clear about what country of removal is even going to be involved. It's not automatic. There is a designation process.

Once you apply for asylum, 8 CFR 1240.11(c)(3) requires "an evidentiary hearing" on the application. This is why the courts have traditionally required two kinds of hearings - Master Calendar and Individual hearings. Because the regulations & statute actually require it.

Last thing, this is really clearly designed to punish people for hiring attorneys and treats people would counsel worse than people without counsel. Is that enough for an equal protection challenge? I don't know. But...

The SC has identified a "doctrine of unconstitutional conditions" which holds that “the government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis” that infringes a constitutionally protected right ... like hiring an attorney. US v. Am. Library Assn. Inc. This obv does that