WASHINGTON — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday blocked President Trump’s executive order that suspended asylum access at the southern border, ruling the move unlawful.
The panel found that federal immigration law gives people the right to apply for asylum at the border and that the president may not sidestep that right. The decision grew out of Trump’s Inauguration Day 2025 proclamation that the situation at the southern border amounted to an “invasion” and that he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he determined the situation had ended.
Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden nominee, wrote for the court that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not permit the president to remove individuals under “procedures of his own making,” to suspend their right to apply for asylum, or to curtail procedures for adjudicating claims under the anti-torture protections. “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,” Childs wrote. The opinion said Congress did not intend to grant the executive 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 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 reaffirming that the president’s priority remains the screening and vetting of those seeking to come, live, or work in the United States.
Immigration advocates praised the decision. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said earlier litigation had already paused the asylum ban and that the opinion reaffirmed that the president cannot unilaterally bar people from seeking asylum — a right mandated by Congress. Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney 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 ruling upheld the rule of law.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He agreed that immigrants cannot be removed to countries where they would be persecuted and that mandatory procedures protecting against such removals cannot be stripped away, but he suggested the administration retains authority to broadly deny asylum applications. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama nominee, was the third member of the panel.
In the executive order, Trump relied on the INA’s proclamation power, arguing it authorizes suspension of entry for groups found “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and explicitly suspended migrants’ ability to request asylum. The order followed other moves that had already curtailed 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 stranded 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 many who had hoped to seek asylum in the U.S. but were left vulnerable in Mexico’s strained asylum system. He and others remain wary, noting prior temporary holds had not always led to lasting access.
Migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere continue to face difficult conditions in Mexico, where asylum systems and international funding have been overwhelmed. This week, hundreds of mostly Haitian migrants left Tapachula on foot seeking better living conditions elsewhere in Mexico.