Judges say Trumpâs order for swift removal at the border âcast aside federal laws affordingâ right to seek asylum.
Published On 24 Apr 2026
An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trumpâs ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administrationâs immigration crackdown.
In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws â namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) â give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.
But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the presidentâs power.
âCongress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,â the ruling said.
âThe Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INAâs removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.â
The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trumpâs order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.
Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an âinvasionâ of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.
Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing âpersecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social groupâ. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.
But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.
Millions of migrants â many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America â have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.
Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended âthe physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern borderâ.
The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trumpâs immigration crackdown have been.
But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under âprocedures of his own makingâ.
Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffsâ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.
âThe power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INAâs mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,â wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.
The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.
The White House stressed after the courtâs decision that banning asylum is part of Trumpâs constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.
âWe have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,â White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.
