WASHINGTON — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday ruled President Trump’s executive order that suspended asylum access at the southern border unlawful and blocked its enforcement.
The court found that federal immigration law gives people the right to apply for asylum at the border and that the president may not bypass that right through an executive proclamation. The decision stems from Trump’s Inauguration Day 2025 proclamation that described the situation at the southern border as an “invasion” and declared a suspension of migrants’ physical entry and ability to seek asylum until the situation ended.
Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden nominee, wrote the opinion for the court. She said the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not permit the president to adopt “procedures of his own making” to remove individuals, to suspend the statutory right to apply for asylum, or to curtail procedures for adjudicating claims under anti‑torture protections. Childs wrote that the proclamation power cited by the president does not implicitly authorize overriding the INA’s mandatory processes for summary removal and that Congress did not intend to vest the executive with the broad removal powers the administration asserted.
The administration may ask the full appeals court to rehear the case or seek review by the Supreme Court. The appellate order does not formally take effect while the court considers any rehearing request.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, criticized the ruling as politically motivated and defended the president’s actions as within his powers as commander in chief. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Justice Department would seek further review and expressed confidence the administration would be vindicated. The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it strongly disagreed with the ruling and reiterated that the president’s priority remains screening and vetting those seeking to come, live, or work in the United States.
Immigration advocates praised the decision. Aaron Reichlin‑Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted earlier litigation had already paused the asylum ban and said the opinion reaffirmed that the president cannot unilaterally bar people from seeking asylum—a right mandated by Congress. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case, called the ruling essential for people fleeing danger who had been denied hearings under the executive order. Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the opinion upheld the rule of law.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He agreed the government may not remove people to countries where they would face persecution and that mandatory protective procedures cannot be stripped away, but he suggested the administration still retains authority to broadly deny asylum applications. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama nominee, was the third member of the panel.
In the executive order, the president relied on the INA’s proclamation power, arguing it authorizes suspension of entry for groups deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and explicitly suspended migrants’ ability to request asylum. The order followed previous measures that had already restricted asylum access under the prior administration, though some limited protection pathways at the southern border remained under President Biden.
The ruling offers cautious hope to migrants waiting in Mexico. Josue Martinez, a psychologist at a migrant shelter in southern Mexico, said the decision could be “a light at the end of the tunnel” for people who hoped to seek asylum in the U.S. but have been left vulnerable in Mexico’s strained asylum system. Observers and advocates said they remain wary, noting that past temporary holds did not always produce lasting access.
Migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries continue to face difficult conditions in Mexico, where asylum systems and international aid have been overwhelmed. This week, hundreds of mostly Haitian migrants left Tapachula on foot seeking better living conditions elsewhere in Mexico.