Washington– Court of Appeal on Friday Forbidden President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending asylum applications, a key plank of the Republican president’s plan to crack down on immigration at the southern border of the United States.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for… Asylum at the borderThe president cannot circumvent this.
The court’s opinion stems from the action Trump took on Inauguration Day 2025 when he declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an invasion of America and that he was “suspension of the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decided the matter was over.
The committee concluded that The Immigration and Nationality Act does not empower the president Removing plaintiffs under “actions of his own making” allows him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to seek asylum or reduce the procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.
“The authority to declare a temporary suspension of the entry of specified alien individuals into the United States does not contain implied authority to override the mandatory process imposed by the Immigration and Nationality Act to summarily remove alien individuals,” wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
“We conclude that the INA’s text, structure, and history make clear that by providing the authority to suspend entry by presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to give the executive branch the expanded removal authority it asserts,” the opinion said.
The administration can ask the full Court of Appeal to reconsider the ruling or resort to the Supreme Court.
The order does not officially take effect until after the court considers any request for reconsideration.
White House press secretary Carolyn Leavitt said she had not seen the ruling, but “it’s not surprising to me. We have liberal judges all over the country who are working against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigants of the law. They are looking at these cases through a political lens.”
Levitt said, in a press conference outside the White House, that Trump is taking actions that are “entirely within his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.”
She added that the justices should thank the president for stopping what she called a “scam” allowed during the Biden administration that allowed “tens of millions of illegal aliens” to enter the country by allowing them to “fraudulently” apply for asylum.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement that the appeal ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even an asylum hearing under the Trump administration’s unlawful and inhumane executive order.”
Judge Justin Walker, Trump’s nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He said the law gives immigrants protection from deportation to countries where they might face persecution, but the administration can issue broad denials of asylum requests.
However, Walker agreed with the majority that the president cannot deport immigrants to countries where they would face persecution or strip them of mandatory measures that protect them from deportation.
The case was also heard by Judge Cornelia Bellard, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.
In the executive order, Trump said the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the power to suspend the entry of any group they find “harmful to the interests of the United States.”
The executive order also halted immigrants’ ability to seek asylum.
———
AP reporters Gary Fields in Washington and Gisela Salomon in Miami contributed to this report.