Washington: A US appeals court has blocked former President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to suspend asylum access at the country’s southern border, dealing a setback to a key immigration policy.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that existing immigration laws grant individuals the right to apply for asylum and that the president cannot override these provisions through executive action.
Court cites limits on presidential authority
The ruling stems from an executive order issued by Trump on Inauguration Day 2025, in which he declared the situation at the southern border an “invasion” and announced a suspension of entry for migrants along with their ability to seek asylum.
However, the court found that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not permit the president to bypass established legal procedures.
Judge J Michelle Childs, writing for the majority, stated that while the president has authority to restrict entry in certain circumstances, this does not extend to overriding mandatory legal processes governing asylum and removal.
The panel concluded that the law’s structure and intent make it clear that Congress did not grant sweeping powers to deny asylum rights unilaterally.
Key legal findings
The court emphasised that:
- Migrants have a statutory right to apply for asylum at the border
- The executive cannot create alternative procedures that bypass legal safeguards
- Protections against deportation to countries where individuals may face harm must be upheld
The judges stated that presidential proclamations cannot replace or override processes mandated by law.
Administration to seek further review
The White House responded by defending the policy, stating that the actions taken were within presidential authority. Officials indicated that the administration may seek further review, either by requesting reconsideration from the full appeals court or by approaching the US Supreme Court.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticised the ruling, suggesting it reflected a political interpretation rather than a legal one.
A spokesperson also confirmed that the Department of Justice would pursue additional legal steps to challenge the decision.
Advocacy groups welcome ruling
Immigration advocates welcomed the court’s decision, calling it a significant affirmation of asylum rights.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council said the ruling reinforces that the president cannot unilaterally deny asylum access.
Similarly, Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union described the decision as crucial for individuals fleeing danger who were denied the opportunity to present their claims.
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Centre, one of the plaintiffs in the case, also welcomed the verdict, stating that it upholds the rule of law.
Partial dissent from judge
Judge Justin Walker issued a partial dissent, arguing that while the administration can impose broad limits on asylum applications, it cannot remove core protections such as safeguards against deportation to unsafe countries.
Judge Cornelia Pillard was also part of the panel that heard the case.
Broader impact on migrants
The ruling is seen as another legal hurdle for efforts to restrict asylum at the southern border. While earlier legal actions had already paused implementation of the order, this decision reinforces the legal framework protecting asylum seekers.
Advocates argue that denying asylum access puts vulnerable individuals at risk, especially those fleeing conflict, persecution or instability.
Regional implications and migrant concerns
In Mexico, where many migrants remain stranded while seeking entry into the United States, the ruling has sparked cautious optimism. Aid workers say it could offer renewed hope, though uncertainty remains due to the possibility of further legal challenges.
Migrants from countries such as Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela continue to face difficult conditions, with limited access to resources and strained asylum systems.
Conclusion
The appeals court ruling underscores the limits of executive authority in immigration matters and reaffirms the legal right to seek asylum in the United States. As the administration considers its next legal steps, the case is likely to remain a key point of debate in US immigration policy and could eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.