Appeals Court Blocks Asylum Pause
- A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 24 kept in place a lower-court block on President Donald Trump’s order suspending asylum claims at the southern border. - The panel ruled 2-1 that the Immigration and Nationality Act still lets migrants on U.S. soil seek asylum, rejecting Trump’s bid to create new summary-removal procedures by proclamation. - The ruling leaves asylum access in place and sets up a likely Supreme Court fight over how far presidential border powers can override immigration law. (abcnews.com)
A federal appeals court on April 24 blocked President Donald Trump’s order suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. (abcnews.com) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that federal immigration law still allows migrants who reach U.S. soil to apply for asylum. Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. (cbsnews.com) The court said the Immigration and Nationality Act does not let the president invent his own summary-removal system or suspend asylum, withholding of removal, or required procedures for Convention Against Torture claims. (abcnews.com) (cbsnews.com) The order under challenge came from Trump’s first day back in office on January 20, 2025, when he declared an “invasion” at the southern border and moved to halt asylum processing and speed removals. (abcnews.com) (cbsnews.com) Friday’s ruling means migrants who make it onto U.S. territory, whether at a port of entry or between ports, can still seek asylum while the case continues. The lower-court injunction remains in force. (abcnews.com) Judge Justin Walker agreed the executive branch cannot cut off procedures that protect people from being sent to countries where they could face persecution or torture, but he dissented on whether the president could deny asylum applications altogether. (cbsnews.com) The administration signaled it will keep fighting. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told ABC News the government “strongly disagree[s]” and said “this will not be the last word on this matter.” (abcnews.com) The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the policy, said the decision could save people who were denied even a hearing under the order. The next step could be a request for full D.C. Circuit review or an appeal to the Supreme Court. (cbsnews.com)
