A federal appeals court on Friday rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to suspend asylum processing at the southern border, ruling that immigration law strips him of that power regardless of how he tries to exercise it.
The three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the government to allow people to apply for asylum and prohibits the president from bypassing those statutory procedures. Trump issued the executive order on his inauguration day, declaring the situation at the US-Mexico border an "invasion" and suspending both physical entry and asylum applications until he deemed the crisis resolved.
"The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA's mandatory process," wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee. The panel concluded the president cannot suspend asylum rights, remove people under rules of his own making, or curtail procedures for claims against torture.
Trump had argued that the same immigration law giving him authority to suspend entry of groups he deems detrimental to US interests also allowed him to eliminate asylum processing. The appeals court rejected that interpretation, finding the statute does not authorize summary removal procedures or stripping asylum protections.
Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, issued a partial dissent acknowledging that presidents cannot deport people to countries where they face persecution and cannot eliminate the mandatory procedures protecting against such removal, but wrote that administrations can issue broad denials of asylum applications.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized the ruling as predictable judicial overreach. She said Trump was acting "completely within his powers as commander-in-chief" and criticized the judges for acting "from a political lens" rather than interpreting law. Leavitt argued the administration was correcting what she called a "scam" under the Biden administration that allowed people to fraudulently claim asylum.
The White House has indicated it will appeal either to the full appeals court or directly to the Supreme Court. The order does not take formal effect until the court rules on any reconsideration request.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling was "essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration's unlawful and inhumane executive order."
Author James Rodriguez: "This ruling exposes a fundamental crack in Trump's immigration strategy: courts aren't buying the argument that immigration emergencies erase statutory requirements."
Comments