The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the Swedish Migration Agency has been mandated by law to appoint public assistants in certain specific situations but there is no constitutional regulation on how this appointment shall be carried out. The appointment has the purpose to ensure that the beneficiary of assistance can defend properly his or her rights. To ensure that tasks such as public assistance are only given to people who are suitable, the Migration Agency has a list that decision-makers within the authority can then take a look at for appointments. However, the list should be seen as an internal decision support for the Migration Agency's decision makers. A person who registers an interest in being appointed as a public assistant is entered on the list if the person in question is considered suitable. Correspondingly, a person who is no longer considered suitable can be removed. In all type of measures, the authority must observe general principles of objectivity.

The Supreme Administrative Court clarified that since the list of persons constitutes an internal decision-making support for the decision makers of the Agency, the measures to remove a person or not to record a person who expresses interest, does not constitute an administrative decision subject to appeal.

The Supreme Administrative Court further ruled that the list is not binding for decision makers at the Migration Agency. A person (lawyer, lawyer at a law firm or other)  who is not there can still be appointed, for example if an individual has requested it.