WASHINGTON (AP) — An executive order by President Donald Trump, aimed at suspending asylum access at the U.S. southern border, was halted by an appeals court on Friday. This decision presents a significant challenge to the president’s immigration policy, a cornerstone of his administration’s strategy to manage migration.
A panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that U.S. immigration laws uphold the right of individuals to apply for asylum at the border, limiting the president’s ability to bypass this process. The ruling came after Trump declared a state of emergency at the southern border on Inauguration Day 2025, asserting an invasion and announcing the suspension of migrants’ physical entry and asylum applications until further notice.
The tribunal determined that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not permit the president to create procedures for removing asylum seekers or to halt their right to apply for asylum. Judge J. Michelle Childs, appointed by President Joe Biden, stated, “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 to summarily remove foreign individuals.”
White House Response
The White House has the option to request a full appeals court review or to escalate the case to the Supreme Court. However, the order will not be enforced until potential appeals are addressed.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, expressed skepticism about the ruling, attributing it to politically biased judges. “They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” she commented during an interview with Fox News.
In an email statement, spokeswoman Abigail Jackson mentioned that the Department of Justice plans to pursue further review, expressing confidence in ultimately prevailing. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet provided a comment.
Advocates’ Perspectives
Advocates for immigrants underscore the importance of the right to seek asylum, as outlined in U.S. immigration law. They argue that barring this right endangers people fleeing war and persecution. Lee Gelernt from the American Civil Liberties Union, who presented the case, emphasized the ruling’s significance for those denied the chance to present asylum claims under the previous administration’s policy.
Nicolas Palazzo of the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center praised the court’s decision, stating, “Today’s DC Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the President cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States.”
Judge Justin Walker, appointed by President Trump, partially dissented, acknowledging protections against persecution for immigrants. However, he agreed with the main decision that the president lacks the authority to deport individuals to perilous countries or eliminate obligatory protective procedures.
Migrant Reactions in Mexico
In southern Mexico, Josue Martinez, a psychologist at a migrant shelter, viewed the ruling as a potential “light at the end of the tunnel.” Yet, he remained cautious, noting the temporary nature of previous legal interventions.
Migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and other nations continue to face hardships in Mexico, struggling to access an overburdened asylum system. This week, hundreds of migrants, predominantly from Haiti, embarked on foot from Tapachula, seeking improved living conditions within Mexico.
