Federal Appeals Court Rules Donald Trump’s Border Asylum Ban Illegal, Clearing Way To Reopen U.S. Border

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s border restrictions are illegal, clearing the way for the United States to reopen the border for migrants seeking asylum.

“WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed on Tuesday his skepticism about the statements by the government of President Donald Trump that his decision to declare an invasion at the United States–Mexico border and to suspend asylum access is not something that courts have the authority to review”

Los Angeles Times

The decision was issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and it addressed Trump’s proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” which barred entry to asylum seekers “until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.”

Los Angeles Times

NPR described the case as blocking Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border, saying the panel found immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border and the president can’t circumvent that.

The Miami Herald reported that the appeals court ruled Trump “can’t use an executive proclamation to bar immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border from seeking asylum.”

The ruling’s language, as quoted by the Miami Herald and the NZ Herald, said: “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.”

The NZ Herald added that it was “not clear when asylum processing would resume,” and it said the Trump administration quickly indicated it would challenge the decision.

The Washington Post’s coverage, as provided in the source text, also states that an appeals court ruled Friday that it clears the way for the U.S. to reopen the border for asylum seekers.

The court fight centered on actions Trump took on Inauguration Day 2025, when he declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an “invasion” and said he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decided it was over.

NPR said the executive order suspended asylum access after Trump declared an invasion and “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over.

NPR

The Guardian likewise said the court opinion stems from action taken by Trump on his inauguration day in 2025, when he declared that the situation at the US-Mexico border constituted “an invasion” and he was “suspending the physical entry” of immigrants and their ability to request asylum.

The Los Angeles Times described the same January 20 order, saying Trump declared that the situation at the southern border constitutes an invasion of the United States and he “suspended the physical entry” of migrants.

In the executive order, the Los Angeles Times reported that Trump’s order states the Immigration and Nationality Act grants presidents authority to suspend entry of any group they deem “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The Miami Herald added that on his first day back in the White House last year, Trump declared the proclamation suspended entry to people crossing between ports of entry and barred them from seeking asylum.

It also said the order resulted in plummeting border encounters and allowed quick deportations without following mandatory procedures under federal law.

The appeals court ruling triggered immediate responses from the White House and from advocates, with the sources quoting officials and attorneys directly.

“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

NPR reported that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, said she had not seen the ruling but called it “unsurprising,” blaming politically-motivated judges and saying, “They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens.”

NPR also quoted White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying the Department of Justice would seek further review and that “We are sure we will be vindicated,” in an emailed statement.

The Guardian quoted Leavitt saying “it’s unsurprising to me” and that “We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes.”

In contrast, Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, celebrated the decision in a statement quoted by the Miami Herald, saying, “This is a huge win. It means that no longer can the Trump administration simply turn away those fleeing horrific danger without even a hearing.”

NPR quoted Gelernt as 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.”

The Miami Herald also quoted Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal Services at Las Americas, saying, “Today's DC Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the President cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States.”

While all the sources describe the same Friday appeals court action, they emphasize different aspects of the ruling and the dispute around it.

NPR foregrounded the legal reasoning that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border and said the panel found the president can’t circumvent that, quoting Judge J. Michelle Childs that “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 Guardian

The Guardian similarly quoted that same passage, but it also highlighted the White House’s lack of immediate response and included Leavitt’s claim that judges were acting for political purposes and that the Biden administration had allowed “tens of millions of illegal aliens” to enter by allowing them to “fraudulently” claim asylum.

The NZ Herald focused on the proclamation and the court’s view that it was “an unprecedented decision” that “brushed off long-standing federal laws outlined by Congress and probably endangered migrants’ lives,” and it quoted the court’s statement about denying asylum “in one stroke.”

The Los Angeles Times, by contrast, placed the dispute in the context of a January 20 hearing before Judge Randolph Moss, describing the government’s argument that the court cannot review the border declaration and quoting Moss’s skepticism with a question: “Is there never any judicial review?”

The Miami Herald framed the ruling as a “decisive blow” to Trump and said it could re-open “an important path for Cubans, Venezuelans, Haitians and other immigrants” seeking asylum through the border while cases were pending.

It also described the practical uncertainty, saying “It is unclear when the Trump administration will begin implementing the appeal court order,” and it said lawyers expect the government will go to the Supreme Court.

The sources describe a continuing legal process and potential further appeals, with the ruling not immediately taking effect in some accounts.

“An appeals court on Friday blocked Donald Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access, a key pillar of the US president’s original plan to crack down on immigration at the southern border after he retook the White House”

The Guardian

NPR said the administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling or go to the Supreme Court, and it added that “The order doesn't formally take effect until after the court considers any request to reconsider.”

Los Angeles Times

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

The Miami Herald reported that lawyers expect the government will go to the Supreme Court and said “It is unclear when the Trump administration will begin implementing the appeal court order.”

The Miami Herald also described what border authorities were supposed to do after the lower court ruling, saying they were supposed to give people screenings for other forms of protection, including “withholding of removal and Conventions Against Torture Protections.”

The Los Angeles Times added that Judge Randolph Moss requested further written briefing on specific legal issues before rendering his decision, and it described the government’s position that the invasion declaration is a “non-reviewable political question.”

NPR quoted advocates warning of danger without hearings, including Lee Gelernt’s statement that the ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing.”