On April 24, 2026,
a federal appeals court blocked President Trump's directive suspending access to asylum and other legal protections for migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border. A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that federal immigration law does not allow the president to deport migrants under new summary removal proceedings implemented by the Trump administration or to suspend their right to apply for asylum.
The decision represents a significant legal defeat for one of the administration's flagship immigration enforcement measures and is widely expected to land before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Origins of the Executive Order
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.
In his executive order, Mr. Trump said that there was an "invasion" into the U.S. and as a result, he was "suspending the physical entry" of undocumented migrants into the country until he determined "that the invasion has concluded." On the heels of that directive, 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." The department also declared that people subject to Mr. Trump's executive order could be summarily removed under one of two new processes, "direct repatriation" or "expedited removal," without being allowed to request asylum. Under the guidance, asylum officers were told not to ask specific questions about whether a migrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.
The Court's Reasoning
Judge J. Michelle Childs authored the decision for the two-judge majority. She was joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Judge Justin Walker concurred in part but dissented from the court's conclusion on the legality of Mr. Trump's directive to effectively close the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border.
At the heart of the decision is a straightforward principle: Congress, not the president, determines the rules governing asylum in the United States. The court examined the text, structure, and legislative history of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), concluding that the president's power to suspend entry by proclamation does not extend to summary removals or overriding congressionally mandated asylum procedures.
Judge Childs wrote: "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 majority further held that
"The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making. Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs' right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs' access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs' Convention Against Torture claims."
Judge Childs noted that while the president could suspend entry into the United States — as Trump and former President Joe Biden used Title 42 to temporarily close the border during the Covid-19 pandemic — that entry authority did not extend to removals.
Childs added that presidents of both parties have invoked the provision at least 90 times over the past four decades, each time to restrict entry
— but never to create an entirely new deportation regime.
The Partial Dissent
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.
Walker said in his partial dissent that he would have narrowed the class, warning that the lower court's ruling would apply to "potentially millions" of people who don't have grounds to sue.
Procedural History
The case before the D.C. Circuit arose in February 2025, when a group of immigrant rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's efforts to block the asylum pathway for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. They argued that the president had exceeded his authority through the new summary removal procedures and that his proclamation and the Homeland Security Department's guidance violated the Immigration Nationality Act.
In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss certified as a class all migrants subject to Mr. Trump's directive who are or will be in the U.S. He also sided with the plaintiffs and asylum seekers, finding that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act or Constitution give Mr. Trump the "sweeping authority asserted" in the proclamation.
In his 128-page ruling, Moss returned several times to his opinion that the president is not entitled to prohibit asylum.
Last year, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative pause on Moss's ruling, before eventually lifting the stay, while narrowing his ruling. It allowed the government to carry out Trump's order to block migrants from the asylum system but stated it couldn't disqualify migrants from other forms of protection against torture.
Friday's ruling now fully affirms Judge Moss's original decision.
White House Response and Next Steps
The administration swiftly pushed back.
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.
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. Leavitt said Trump was taking actions that are "completely within his powers as commander in chief."
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.
Experts have long said that the case would eventually land before the justices for review.
Reactions From Advocates
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."
Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal services at Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, one of the plaintiffs, stated: "Today's DC Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the President cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States."
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. He noted that the decision "confirms that President Trump cannot on his own bar people from seeking asylum."
Practical Implications for Immigrants and Asylum Seekers
For those affected by the policy, the immediate practical impact may be limited. The ruling does not formally take effect until the court considers any request for reconsideration, and the administration has signaled its intent to pursue further appeals. However, the decision carries significant weight as appellate-level authority and strengthens the legal foundation for asylum rights at the southern border.
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.
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.
The case — RAICES v. Mullin —
is one of many aspects of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda that has faced legal challenges.
The decision comes as the Supreme Court weighs a separate case that considers where migrants are able to claim asylum along the southern U.S. border.
Immigration attorneys and advocates should closely monitor whether the administration seeks en banc review from the full D.C. Circuit or proceeds directly to the Supreme Court, as either path could produce a definitive ruling on the scope of presidential authority over asylum law. In the meantime, individuals with pending asylum claims or those who were denied the opportunity to apply under the proclamation should consult with qualified immigration counsel to understand their options.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know has been affected by the asylum ban, please contact ClinchLaw or another qualified immigration attorney for guidance.