Appeals court rules that Trump's asylum ban at the border is illegal
[April 25, 2026]
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST
WASHINGTON (AP) — An appeals court on Friday blocked President Donald
Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border
of the U.S., a key pillar of the Republican president’s plan to crack
down on migration.
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 court opinion stems from action taken by Trump on Inauguration Day
2025, when he 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
decides it is over.
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.
“We conclude that the INA’s text, structure, and history make clear that
in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation,
Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal
authority it asserts,” the opinion said.
White House says asylum ban was within Trump's powers
The administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider the
ruling or go to the Supreme Court.
The order doesn’t formally take effect until after the court considers
any request to reconsider.
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.
“They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at
these cases from a political lens,” she said.
Leavitt said Trump was taking actions that are “completely within his
powers as commander in chief.”
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Department of Justice
would seek further review of the decision. “We are sure we will be
vindicated,” she wrote in an emailed statement.
The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the
ruling.
“President Trump’s top priority remains the screening and vetting of all
aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States,” DHS said in
a statement.
Advocates welcome the ruling
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration
Council, said that previous legal action had already paused the asylum
ban, and the ruling won’t change much on the ground.
The ruling, however, represents another legal defeat for a centerpiece
policy of the president.
“This confirms that President Trump cannot on his own bar people from
seeking asylum, that it is Congress that has mandated that asylum
seekers have a right to apply for asylum and the President cannot simply
invoke his authority to sustain,” said Reichlin-Melnick.
Advocates say the right to request asylum is enshrined in the country’s
immigration law and say denying migrants that right puts people fleeing
war or persecution in grave danger.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump speaks during an event on health care
affordability in the Oval Office at the White House, Thursday, April
23, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Lee Gelernt, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who
argued the case, 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.”
Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, one of the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, welcomed the court decision as a victory for their clients.
“Today’s DC Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the
President cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States,”
said Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal Services at Las
Americas.
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.
In the executive order, Trump argued that the Immigration and
Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of
any group that they find “detrimental to the interests of the United
States.”
The executive order also suspended the ability of migrants to ask
for asylum.
Trump’s order was another blow to asylum access in the U.S., which
was severely curtailed under the Biden administration, although
under Biden some pathways for protections for a limited number of
asylum seekers at the southern border continued.
Migrant advocate in Mexico expresses cautious hope
For Josue Martinez, a psychologist who works at a small migrant
shelter in southern Mexico, the ruling marked a potential “light at
the end of the tunnel” for many migrants who once hoped to seek
asylum in the U.S. but ended up stuck in vulnerable conditions in
Mexico.
“I hope there’s something more concrete, because we’ve heard this
kind of news before: A district judge files an appeal, there’s a
temporary hold, but it’s only temporary and then it’s over,” he
said.
Meanwhile, migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries
have struggled to make ends meet as they try to seek refuge in
Mexico’s asylum system that’s all but collapsed under the weight of
new strains and slashed international funds.
This week hundreds of migrants, mostly stranded migrants from Haiti,
left the southern Mexican city of Tapachula on foot to seek better
living conditions elsewhere in Mexico.
———
AP reporters Gary Fields in Washington, Gisela Salomon in Miami and
Megan Janetsky in Mexico City contributed to this report.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
