Judges say Trump’s order to expedite action at the border ‘nullifies federal laws’ denying right to seek asylum.
Published on 24 April 2026
An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications into the United States is unlawful, dealing a blow to the administration’s immigration crackdown.
In a ruling released Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws – namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) – give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Trump issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term.
But the appeals court questioned whether it was within the President’s power to unilaterally suspend asylum.
The ruling said, “Congress did not intend to give the executive broad removal authority.”
“The proclamation and guidance are unlawful to the extent that they circumvent INA’s removal procedures and disregard federal laws that provide individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withhold removal protection.”
This decision validated the lower court’s decision. Although judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. The White House has already indicated it plans to appeal.
Trump made immigration a key pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, and pledged to stop what he described as an “invasion” of immigrants by closing the US southern border.
Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protection is recognized as a fundamental human right under international law.
But unauthorized border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, who imposed his own asylum restrictions.
Millions of migrants – many of whom are victims of mass violence and political persecution in Central and South America – have reached the US and claimed asylum.
About 945,000 applied for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
In his January 2025 order, Trump suspended “physical entry of aliens involved in the invasion into the United States across the southern border.”
The proclamation was immediately challenged in court, as have other Trump immigration crackdown measures.
But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorize the President to remove plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making.”
Nor does it allow it to suspend plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or to curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.
Judge J. Mitchell Childs, a Biden appointee, wrote, “The proclamation’s power to temporarily suspend entry of specified alien persons into the United States does not include inherent authority to override the INA’s mandatory process for summarily removing alien persons.”
The Trump administration will likely appeal the decision to the full appeals court and then to the Supreme Court.
Following the court’s decision, the White House insisted that imposing a ban on asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.
White House spokeswoman Carolyn Levitt told reporters, “We have liberal judges across the country who are working against this President for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigants of the law. They are approaching these cases from a political perspective.”
