Skip to main content
PulseWire News
PoliticsA U.S. appeals court has blocked President Trump's executive order that aimed to suspend asylum access at the southern border, affirming that immigration laws grant individuals the right to apply for asylum.

Court Blocks Trump's Asylum Suspension Order, Upholds Migrants' Rights

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals has blocked President Trump's executive order that suspended asylum access at the southern border, affirming the right of migrants to apply for asylum under U.S. immigration laws.

Source: AP1 min read

In brief

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against President Trump's executive order that aimed to suspend asylum access at the U.S. southern border. The court emphasized that immigration laws grant individuals the right to apply for asylum, and the executive order was deemed an overreach of presidential authority. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt hailed the decision as crucial for those fleeing danger, while Judge Justin Walker dissented on aspects of the law regarding asylum denials. This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing litigation surrounding immigration policies.

WASHINGTON (AP) — An appeals court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access, a key pillar of the Republican president’s plan to crack down on migration at the southern border of the U.S.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president can’t circumvent that.

The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn’t authorize the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making,” allow him to suspend plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.

“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,” wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement that the appellate ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration’s unlawful and inhumane executive order.”

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. He said the law gives immigrants protections against removal to countries where they would be persecuted, but the administration can issue broad denials of asylum applications.

Walker, however, agreed with the majority that the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they will be persecuted or strip them of mandatory procedures that protect against their removal.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, also heard the case.

Topics

More on this story