A U.S. appeals court on Friday halted President Trump’s executive order that suspended the ability of migrants to apply for asylum at the southern border, dealing a major legal setback to a cornerstone of his immigration policy.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that federal immigration law preserves the right to seek asylum at the border and that the president may not override that statutory protection by proclamation. The challenge arose from an order Mr. Trump issued on Inauguration Day 2025, declaring the southern border an “invasion” and directing that migrants’ physical entry and ability to request asylum be suspended until he determined the situation had abated.
Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden nominee who wrote the panel’s opinion, said the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not give the president authority to create his own removal procedures, to suspend the right to apply for asylum, or to limit processes for adjudicating claims that returning an individual would expose them to torture. The opinion examined the INA’s language, structure and legislative history and concluded Congress did not intend to vest the executive with the broad removal powers the administration claimed.
The administration may ask the full appeals court for rehearing or take the case to the Supreme Court. A temporary hold remains in place while courts consider further review.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized the ruling on Fox News, calling it politically driven and arguing the administration’s actions fall within presidential authority as commander in chief. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Justice Department will seek additional review and expressed confidence the administration would ultimately prevail. The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the decision and emphasized the president’s stated priority of screening and vetting people who seek to enter, live or work in the United States.
Immigration advocates hailed the decision. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council said earlier litigation had already limited the order’s reach and that the opinion affirms Congress intended to preserve asylum access. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case, described the ruling as vital for people who had been denied hearings under what he called an unlawful policy. Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, called the outcome a win for clients and for the rule of law.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, wrote a partial dissent: he agreed that people cannot be returned to persecution and that statutory protections remain mandatory, but he suggested the executive might have authority to issue broad asylum denials. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama nominee, sat with the panel.
The executive order had relied on an INA provision that allows suspension of entry for groups deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States” and explicitly sought to bar asylum requests. Advocates warn the move further tightened asylum access in an already constrained system.
The decision offered tentative hope to advocates and migrants in Mexico. Josue Martinez, a psychologist working at a migrant shelter in southern Mexico, called it a possible sign of relief for people stranded en route to the U.S., but urged caution given past temporary legal pauses. Many migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere continue to face dire conditions as Mexico’s asylum system strains under rising demand; this week hundreds, mainly Haitian migrants, left Tapachula on foot seeking better options elsewhere in Mexico.