Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Asylum Ban, Clearing Way To Reopen U.S.-Mexico Border

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s border proclamation and related actions cannot lawfully eliminate migrants’ access to asylum, clearing the way for the United States to reopen the border for asylum seekers.

“Appeals court says Trump's order suspending asylum claims at the border is unlawful The court affirmed that migrants who cross the border can apply for asylum”

ABC News

The decision came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, wrote the majority opinion, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama nominee, joined, and Judge Justin R. Walker, a Trump appointee, wrote a partial dissent.

ABC News

The court said the Immigration and Nationality Act does not permit the president to remove plaintiffs under “summary removal procedures of his own making,” and it also rejected the idea that the executive can suspend asylum rights.

In the Washington Post’s account, the court described Trump’s proclamation as “an unprecedented decision” that brushed off “long-standing federal laws outlined by Congress and probably endangered migrants’ lives.”

The ruling also emphasized that “Denying asylum in one stroke, without any information about the affected individuals, necessarily ignores every risk of persecution they face when forced back to where they came from,” according to the Washington Post.

The Washington Post further reported that it was “not clear when asylum processing would resume,” and that the Trump administration quickly indicated it intended to challenge the decision.

The ABC News report similarly framed the ruling as an affirmation that “migrants who cross the border can apply for asylum,” and it quoted the court’s reasoning that “The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making.”

The appeals court ruling grew out of President Trump’s actions on the first day of his second term, when he issued the proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” and declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an “invasion.”

The Washington Post reported that the proclamation barred entry to asylum seekers for public safety, health and economic reasons “until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.”

Al Jazeera

NPR described the same inauguration-day move as Trump “declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an invasion of America” and that he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decided it was over.

CBS News added that the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance informing immigration authorities at the southern border that individuals who cross between ports of entry are “not permitted to apply for asylum,” and it said the guidance told asylum officers not to ask specific questions about whether a migrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.

In the Washington Post account, advocates sued after the border remained largely closed to asylum seekers as the case moved through the courts, arguing the administration violated federal law by rejecting people’s right to seek asylum because they fear persecution based on their political opinion, race or other reasons detailed in federal law.

The Washington Post also said a lower-court judge had ruled in favor of the advocates, but the border stayed largely closed while the case proceeded.

NPR reported that the panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not authorize the president to remove plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making,” and it quoted Judge J. Michelle Childs: “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.”

The Hill’s account tied the appeals court’s reasoning to the structure of the asylum statute, quoting that “Congress enacted the asylum statute, with narrow exceptions specified by statute, to grant all foreign individuals ‘physically present’ in the United States a right to apply for asylum and have their individual applications adjudicated.”

The ruling triggered immediate, sharply contrasting responses from advocates, the White House, and the agencies implementing the policy.

“Washington — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump's directive suspending access to asylum and other legal protections for migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border”

CBS News

The Washington Post quoted White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying Trump had utilized his “lawful authority” to end the “egregious exploitation” of the U.S. asylum system, and it reported that the Justice Department “will seek further review of this badly flawed decision and we are confident we will be vindicated,” in a statement.

ABC News reported that the Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said they “strongly disagree” with the ruling and that “this will not be the last word on this matter.”

In the same ABC News account, Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued the appeal, said, “This decision will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration's horrific asylum ban.”

NPR similarly quoted Gelernt saying 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,” and it also quoted ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt in a statement that the ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims.”

The Hill and CBS News both described the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt attacking the judges, with The Hill quoting her as saying, “Unfortunately, while it’s newsy, it’s unsurprising to me. We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes.”

CBS News added that Leavitt said the actions were “completely within his powers as commander in chief,” and it reported that she argued the judges should be “thanking the president of the United States for ending the border invasion.”

Meanwhile, the Guardian reported that the White House press secretary said she had not seen the ruling but called it “it’s unsurprising to me,” and it quoted her saying the judges were “looking at these cases from a political lens.”

While all the outlets described the same core legal outcome—blocking Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access—their emphasis and language differed across coverage.

The Washington Post highlighted the court’s characterization of the proclamation as “an unprecedented decision” and focused on the uncertainty of timing, stating it was “not clear when asylum processing would resume,” while also noting the administration’s intent to challenge the decision.

Law Commentary

NPR foregrounded the legal reasoning by quoting Judge J. Michelle Childs on the limits of presidential power, stating, “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.”

The Guardian framed the ruling as a key pillar of Trump’s “original plan to crack down on immigration at the southern border,” and it quoted Lee Gelernt describing the ruling as “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims.”

CBS News emphasized the procedural effect, saying the court blocked the directive suspending asylum and other legal protections for migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border, and it quoted the majority’s conclusion that the INA does not allow removal under “summary removal procedures of his own making.”

Al Jazeera, in contrast, described the decision as a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown and reported that it is unclear what its immediate impact will be, while also quoting the court’s language that “Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts.”

The Hill focused on the asylum statute’s structure, quoting that “Congress enacted the asylum statute” to grant “physically present” individuals a right to apply for asylum and have their applications adjudicated.

Across these accounts, the same judges and legal themes recur—Judge J. Michelle Childs, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and Judge Justin R. Walker—but the outlets differ in whether they foreground timing, statutory structure, or the court’s critique of executive authority.

The ruling’s immediate effect is tied to further legal steps, with multiple outlets describing the administration’s plan to seek additional review and the possibility of a Supreme Court showdown.

“Appeals court rules that Trump's asylum ban at the border is illegal WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump's executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border of the U”

NPR

The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration quickly indicated its intent to challenge the decision, and it said the Justice Department “will seek further review of this badly flawed decision and we are confident we will be vindicated.”

NPR

ABC News similarly said the Trump administration will likely appeal the decision, which could set up a possible showdown at the Supreme Court, and it quoted the Department of Homeland Security spokesperson saying “this will not be the last word on this matter.”

NPR said the administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling or go to the Supreme Court, and it described the order as not formally taking effect until after the court considers any request to reconsider.

The Guardian reported that the administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider or go to the US supreme court, and it said the order does not formally take effect until after the court considers any request to reconsider.

CBS News stated that the Trump administration can ask the full D.C. Circuit to review the decision or appeal to the Supreme Court, and it described the case as one of many aspects of Trump’s immigration agenda facing legal challenges.

The Hill described the decision as effectively blocking a proclamation Trump signed on the first day of his second term, and it said the ruling upholds a July 2025 ruling by District Judge Randolph D. Moss.

In the Washington Post, the court’s decision was also described as coming weeks after the Supreme Court appeared poised to uphold birthright citizenship, and it noted that the Trump administration faces “dozens of legal challenges” to efforts to discourage illegal deportation and deport undocumented immigrants.