Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Discover

Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump’s Asylum Ban Illegal, Restores Border Processing

Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump’s Asylum Ban Illegal, Restores Border Processing
View gallery

A federal appeals court in Washington ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s declaration of an “invasion” at the U.S.-Mexico border and his near‑total suspension of asylum were illegal, upholding a lower‑court injunction and effectively clearing the way for asylum processing at the southern border to resume after a brief delay nytimes +1. The 2–1 decision held that immigration statutes passed by Congress, not presidential proclamations, control how migrants present in the United States are screened and removed politico.

What the Court Said About Presidential Power and Asylum Law

The D.C. Circuit panel agreed with U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, who ruled in July 2025 that Trump’s 2025 “invasion” proclamation created an “alternative immigration system” without any basis in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) pbs. Writing for the majority, Judges J. Michelle Childs and Cornelia Pillard said existing immigration law “does not allow the president to remove plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making” and that the INA provides the “sole and exclusive” framework for handling people already inside the country nytimes +1.

The opinion emphasized that Congress granted anyone “physically present” in the United States the right to apply for asylum, subject only to narrow exceptions specified in statute, and concluded that Trump’s blanket suspension of asylum at the border did not fit any of those exceptions politico. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented in part, signaling a sharp divide over how much deference courts owe presidents who invoke national‑security language like “invasion” to justify sweeping immigration measures cbsnews.

What Changes at the Border Now — and What Could Stop It

The ruling does not take effect immediately: the panel built in a seven‑day delay to give the administration time to request a full‑court rehearing or seek emergency intervention from the Supreme Court abcnews. If no higher court steps in, the decision will force the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection to restart or expand asylum intake at ports of entry and along the southern border, including credible‑fear screenings and referrals into an already overburdened immigration court system nytimes +1.

That system is facing record strain. As of February 2026, immigration courts were handling more than 3.3 million pending cases, with roughly 2.3 million involving asylum applications, while separate affirmative asylum backlogs at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have been estimated at around 1.5 million theguardian. Immigrant‑rights advocates hailed the decision as a reaffirmation that “the president lacks the power to unilaterally override laws passed by Congress,” in the words of ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt nytimes, while Trump officials denounced earlier rulings as judicial overreach and are expected to urge the Supreme Court to keep the asylum limits in place pbs.

The Bigger Picture

The D.C. Circuit’s decision landed as the Supreme Court weighs a separate case over whether border agents can turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry before they are deemed to have “arrived” in the United States, a ruling that could further reshape who actually reaches the asylum system mexiconewsdaily. Together, the cases highlight a central fight of Trump’s second term: how far a president can stretch emergency and “invasion” rhetoric to sidestep detailed immigration statutes. Whether the asylum ban now falls quickly or lingers through another round of appeals, the opinion underscored that any lasting shift in border policy will likely require what Washington has repeatedly failed to deliver — new immigration laws from Congress, rather than improvisations from the White House. nytimes +1