WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s executive order that suspended asylum at the U.S. southern border, dealing a legal blow to a central element of his immigration agenda.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that federal immigration law gives people the right to apply for asylum at the border and that the president cannot override those protections by executive proclamation. The ruling stems from an order Trump issued on Inauguration Day 2025 declaring the southern border an “invasion” and “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he determined the situation had ended.
The panel found that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not permit the president to remove people under “procedures of his own making,” to suspend their right to apply for asylum, or to curtail processes for adjudicating claims that they would face torture if returned. “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,” Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden nominee, wrote. The opinion added that the INA’s text, structure and history show Congress did not intend to give the executive the broad removal authority the administration asserted.
The administration can request rehearing by the full appeals court or appeal to the Supreme Court. The order remains stayed while courts consider further review.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, criticized the decision as politically motivated and said she had not seen the opinion. “They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” she said, adding that Trump’s actions fall within his powers as commander in chief. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Justice Department would seek additional review and predicted they would be vindicated. The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the ruling and reiterated that the president’s top priority is screening and vetting those who seek to come, live or work in the U.S.
Immigration advocates welcomed the decision. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that prior litigation had already limited the policy’s implementation and said the opinion confirms that the president cannot unilaterally bar people from seeking asylum — a right that Congress has mandated. Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, who argued the case, said the ruling is essential for those fleeing danger who were denied hearings under the administration’s “unlawful and inhumane” order. Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, a plaintiff in the suit, called the decision a victory for clients and for the rule of law.
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, wrote a partial dissent, agreeing that immigrants cannot be deported to countries where they face persecution and that mandatory protections cannot be stripped, but he suggested the administration may have authority to issue broad denials of asylum applications. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama nominee, sat with the panel.
In his executive order, Trump had cited the INA’s provision allowing a president to suspend entry of groups deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” and explicitly suspended migrants’ ability to request asylum. The move further curtailed asylum access in the U.S.—already limited under the Biden administration, though some protection pathways remained available.
The ruling raised cautious hope among migrant advocates in Mexico. Josue Martinez, a psychologist at a migrant shelter in southern Mexico, called the decision a possible “light at the end of the tunnel” for people who had hoped to reach the U.S. for protection but became stranded in precarious conditions in Mexico. He urged caution, noting similar temporary legal pauses in the past. Many migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and elsewhere face dire circumstances as Mexico’s asylum system strains under increasing demand and funding cuts. This week, hundreds of primarily Haitian migrants left the southern Mexican city of Tapachula on foot seeking better conditions elsewhere in Mexico.