Federal Judge Bars Trump Administration from Expelling Asylum Seekers
In a 128-page decision, U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss invalidated a proclamation that President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office that declared an 'invasion' on the border and invoked emergency presidential powers to deport migrants without allowing them to apply for asylum. Migrants and advocacy groups sued in February, saying federal law allows people to apply for the humanitarian protection no matter how they entered the United States.
Moss stayed his ruling for 14 days pending a likely appeal from the Trump administration. But he wrote that the executive branch cannot create an 'alternative immigration system' that tramples on existing federal law.
'The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,' Moss wrote. But he added that the Immigration and Nationality Act 'provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.'
Depending on the appeal, the ruling could reopen asylum processing on the southern border and enable migrants to cross into the United States in hopes of seeking refuge. The decision is the latest in a long line of litigation over federal asylum law, and the case ultimately could reach the Supreme Court.
The White House warned that the decision could lead to another surge on the southern border with Mexico.
'A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally,' said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. 'This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty. We expect to be vindicated on appeal.'
The Supreme Court, ruling last week on Trump's attempts to end birthright citizenship, curtailed judges' authority to issue the type of sweeping nationwide injunctions that have paused several administration policies while they were under legal review.
But Moss, as part of his ruling Wednesday, certified all asylum seekers 'currently present in the United States' as a legal class, making his ruling applicable to most people who would be affected by Trump's policy. Class-action lawsuits were one avenue the Supreme Court justices suggested in their birthright citizenship ruling that lower courts could still provide broad relief to many people in the same situation.
Attorneys in the asylum case had sought class certification from the judge well before Friday's birthright citizenship ruling. Still, Trump administration officials quickly attacked Moss as 'a rogue district court judge' and his ruling as an attempt 'to circumvent the Supreme Court.'
'The American people see through this,' Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on social media. 'Our attorneys … will fight this unconstitutional power grab.'
The ruling is a legal roadblock for the Trump administration as it pursues an aggressive plan to deport 1 million undocumented immigrants this year. Federal courts have limited some of Trump's policies – a judge on Wednesday blocked him from terminating temporary protected status for Haitians, for instance – but immigration arrests are up sharply, border crossings are down dramatically and Congress is working through the final stages of a sprawling tax bill that would turbocharge funding for immigration enforcement.
Illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border have been reduced to a trickle, with fewer than 9,000 apprehensions in May, the most recent month available, compared with fewer than 118,000 in May 2024.
Trump officials have celebrated the sharp decline and noted that it is in stark contrast to the average of 2 million apprehensions annually in the first years of the Biden administration as migrants fled pandemic-ravaged economies and authoritarian regimes in nations such as Venezuela.
But advocates for immigrants argued that the Trump administration achieved the lower numbers by overstepping presidential authority and ignoring laws passed by Congress. Federal law stipulates that immigrants on U.S. soil may apply for asylum, even if they crossed the border illegally.
In the lawsuit, lawyers for 13 immigrants from countries including Afghanistan, Cuba and Turkey argued that their clients fled persecution and deserved a chance to apply for protection. Some plaintiffs had already been deported back to their native countries or to an alternative country, including Panama. Moss has not yet ruled on whether the government must bring back the deportees.
Advocacy groups had also argued that migrants were being deprived of protection.
'The importance of restoring asylum in the United States cannot be overstated, not only for the people whose lives are in danger but for our standing in the world,' said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case. 'The decision also sends a message that the President cannot simply ignore laws Congress has passed.'
To qualify for asylum protection, migrants must demonstrate a fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or another reason that makes them a target in their native country.
Trump's first term, from 2017 to 2021, also was marked by immigration surges, and he implemented multiple asylum restrictions that were overturned by federal courts. Illegal border crossings declined during the pandemic, but they began to rise again before Trump left office.
After returning to the White House in January, Trump renewed his efforts to curb asylum. He signed a proclamation on his first day called 'Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion' and began to reject asylum seekers from the border.
Trump has argued that he maintains the legal authority to bar entry to migrants under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of foreigners deemed detrimental to the United States.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that Trump could use that legal authority to implement the third version of his travel ban targeting people mainly from Muslim-majority nations.
But Moss drew a bright line between people outside the United States and those who are already here, saying the authority to bar entry 'does not mean that the President has the authority to alter the rules that apply to those who have already entered.'
Trump and his surrogates have long argued that smugglers abuse U.S. asylum laws to help migrants gain entry into the country and remain for years as their cases wind through the backlogged immigration system. Biden officials restricted asylum access last year after record numbers of border apprehensions damaged his political standing.
Biden officials curtailed asylum for those who crossed the border illegally, but they also created legal pathways into the country so that people could apply for legal protection, such as parole programs for Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans. That administration also allowed migrants waiting in Mexico to schedule appointments to cross the border legally through a Customs and Border Protection app called CBP One.
Trump, in contrast, essentially foreclosed access to asylum after taking office in January, advocates for immigrants argued, by flatly rejecting migrants at the southern border. Trump officials also ended the parole program and discontinued the app appointments.
In the Mexican border city of Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Texas, there were between 700 and 800 migrants who had applied for or obtained appointments through CBP One when Trump took office. His administration canceled them all.
Many lost hope and gave up, said the Rev. Abraham Barberi, leader of One Mission Ministries, which helps feed migrants in the Mexican government shelter.
But about 200 – mostly families with children – have remained in the shelter for two reasons, he said.
'One, because they still have hope something will change,' Barberi said. 'And two, because they have nowhere else to go.'
Immigrant rights lawyers said Moss's ruling on the asylum issue could lead to increased border crossings if the Trump administration is forced to restore access to asylum.
'People remain fearful of what is happening in this country. I don't know how people will react,' said Keren Zwick, the director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center and co-counsel with the ACLU on the case. 'But sometimes the news, and how our legal system works, does not really matter to someone fleeing for their lives.'
Migrants are aware of the Trump administration hard-line enforcement tactics – including a new detention facility that opened this week in alligator-infested swampland in Florida – and many remain afraid to cross into the country, some advocates said.
'They've seen the deportations and all that's happening in the U.S., and they are not sure it's a place for them anymore,' said the Rev. Juan Fierro of El Buen Samaritano migrant shelter in Juarez, across the border from El Paso.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
an hour ago
- The Mainichi
Japan seeks 8th round of tariffs talks in U.S. amid Trump impasse
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Japanese government has informed the United States that its chief negotiator intends to conduct an eighth round of ministerial-level talks in Washington early next week, a source close to the matter said Thursday. With President Donald Trump appearing to harden his stance ahead of next Wednesday's deadline for his administration's 90-day pause on country-specific tariffs, Japan's last-ditch effort will hinge on whether Ryosei Akazawa can secure a deal that includes a reduced tariff rate on cars, the source said. In rounds of talks since April, the United States has been reluctant to accept Tokyo's request to withdraw or reduce the additional 25 percent tariff on cars. Amid the stalemate, Japan is seeking an extension of the tariff suspension deadline to allow talks to continue. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Thursday expressed confidence that bilateral tariff negotiations with the United States are making steady progress. "We need to cover a wide range of areas, including nontariff barriers. But we are steadily and certainly making progress on each of them," Ishiba told a program on public broadcaster NHK. "Japan is the largest investor in the United States and the biggest contributor in terms of creating jobs. Our hope is that this will be taken into consideration," he said, underscoring the need for Washington to focus on investment rather than tariffs. His remarks came as Trump on Tuesday floated the idea of raising tariffs on imports from Japan to as high as 30 percent or 35 percent, while complaining about Japan's purchases of American rice and cars. "I'm not sure we're going to make a deal. I doubt it," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, calling Japan "very tough" and "very spoiled." The dispute over auto tariffs has been a key obstacle to a deal, with Washington also pressuring its Asian security ally to boost imports of U.S. farm products, including rice, cars and oil, to help reduce its large trade deficit. In return, Japan has highlighted its contributions to the U.S. economy and proposed a package deal that includes increased investment in the United States and cooperation on economic security, the source said. Without an extension to the 90-day pause on part of the so-called reciprocal tariffs, Japan will face an additional 14 percent country-specific tariff on top of the 10 percent baseline duty the United States has imposed on imports from all countries. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the United States warned Japanese officials during talks in late May that it might demand a cap on the number of vehicles Japan could export to the United States -- a policy known as a voluntary export restriction, citing people familiar with the matter. But Japanese officials held firm, telling their U.S. counterparts they would not accept any deal that preserves Trump's 25 percent automotive tariff, resulting in a deadlock in the negotiations, the U.S. newspaper said.
The Diplomat
2 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Are India-US Relations at a Crossroads?
Donald Trump's intervention in a brief Indo-Pakistan conflict and his diplomatic theatrics have rekindled fears of a return to Washington's old habit of hyphenating India with Pakistan. In the wake of a terrorist attack in late April targeting tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, a series of military skirmishes took place between India and Pakistan. These involved extensive artillery barrages along the Line of Control (the de facto international border in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir), the use of drones and missiles to attack a range of targets, and the use of air power. Following this four-day conflict, Pakistan alleged that it had shot down as many as six Indian combat aircraft. General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defense staff, confirmed that the Indian Air Force had lost some aircraft but did not specify the number. After the hostilities concluded, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that he had successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire. To that end, he asserted that he had threatened to impose significant trade sanctions on both countries, thereby inducing them to end the ongoing hostilities. Pakistan lauded his public remarks and even briefly nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. (After Trump's decision to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran, Pakistan's political opposition asked its government to rescind the nomination.) India, for its part, has repeatedly and categorically denied that the ceasefire was a product of Trump's intervention. It is both difficult and unnecessary to adjudicate the veracity of either claim. What matters is that Trump's attempt to insert himself into this latest India-Pakistan crisis has set off alarm bells in New Delhi about the state of India-U.S. relations. Before Trump proclaimed his role in ending the brief, intense conflict, Vice President J.D. Vance had stated that the India-Pakistan crisis was 'none of our business.' Trump subsequently claimed the U.S. acted as mediator in defusing India-Pakistan tensions. The latter statement raised hackles in New Delhi owing to its long-standing aversion to external efforts to resolve its differences with Pakistan. Finally, to New Delhi's dismay, Trump decided to host General Asim Munir, the Pakistan Army's chief of staff, for lunch at the White House. Although little of substance emerged from the meeting, the optics were a source of considerable misgiving in New Delhi. Several Indian political analysts and commentators have argued that Trump's statements and actions suggest a return to the much-disliked U.S. policy of hyphenation: linking India and Pakistan in its dealings with the two antagonistic neighbors. Indeed, this had characterized U.S. policy toward the subcontinent during much of the Cold War. It was only under the late U.S. Ambassador Frank Wisner in the mid-1990s that Washington decided to de-hyphenate its relations with the two countries. Wisner, who served as the ambassador to New Delhi between 1994 and 1997, was able to pursue this strategy because of India's growing economic clout in the wake of its fitful embrace of economic liberalization in 1991. Subsequent administrations, for the most part, adhered to this policy. Even after the renewal of a Pakistan-U.S. security relationship following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States, Washington maintained a cordial and mostly robust relationship with India. The India-U.S. partnership even survived Secretary of State Colin Powell's maladroit designation of Pakistan as a 'major non-NATO ally' in 2004, despite causing its share of unease in New Delhi. What, in considerable part, redeemed the India-U.S. relationship was President George W. Bush's monumental decision in 2005 to pursue the India-U.S. civilian nuclear accord. This accord, for all practical purposes, exempted India from the strictures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and allowed it to maintain its nuclear weapons program. All prior U.S. presidents had, to varying degrees, sought to cajole, persuade and even browbeat India to eschew its nuclear weapons program and accede to the NPT. Bush's decision to make an exception for India amounted to what scholars of international relations refer to as a 'costly signal' — namely, one that requires the expenditure of significant domestic and international political capital. In its wake, India-U.S. relations had been placed on a far more secure footing. Subsequent administrations, both Democratic and Republican, steadily built upon the solid foundations that Bush had constructed during his second term in office. The Barack Obama administration, for example, during its first year in office, neglected India. However, Obama visited India in 2010. During the visit, much to the surprise of his interlocutors in New Delhi, in a speech to the Indian Parliament he publicly stated that the United States, at some point, would look forward to including New Delhi as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Since this was a long-standing Indian goal, his announcement came as a very pleasant surprise to the Indian political leadership. Also, at the initiative of then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the administration designated India as a 'Major Defense Partner,' thereby easing defense acquisitions from the United States. Even the advent of the first Trump administration did not lead to substantial policy changes. India, it appeared, had for all practical purposes become a mostly bipartisan issue. The Joe Biden administration, despite expressing some misgivings about democratic backsliding and human rights in India, continued to deepen and broaden the strategic partnership, especially because of its concerns about an increasingly assertive, if not downright revanchist, China in Asia. Trump's return to office in 2025, however, has seen some disturbing signs, largely because of his propensity to use trade as a weapon or at least a source of leverage. Unlike in the past, perhaps cognizant of Trump's inclination to exploit the trade deficit with India as a political blunderbuss, the Modi government indicated a willingness to make certain trade concessions. These trade negotiations, though initially promising, have yet to result in an accord. Meanwhile, Trump's maladroit remarks and his hosting of General Munir have cast a pall on the India-U.S. relationship. It is, of course, possible that New Delhi is needlessly tying itself in knots about these ill-advised statements from the White House. They may simply reflect Trump's proclivity for self-aggrandizement and a degree of policy incoherence. That said, given Trump's mercurial disposition, New Delhi's concerns about the future of the relationship may well be understandable. Much of the progress that has been achieved in India-U.S. relations could suffer a setback owing to Trump's ill-advised remarks. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
NHK
3 hours ago
- NHK
Russia welcomes US suspension of weapons shipments to Ukraine
Russia has welcomed the US suspension of some weapons shipments to Ukraine. But Ukraine maintains it has begun negotiations with the US over the arms supply. The administration of President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that the US has halted some weapons shipments to Ukraine. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov welcomed the move. He said on Wednesday, "the fewer weapons are supplied to Ukraine, the sooner the special military operation ends." Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed that his country has started negotiations with the United States. He said in a social media post on Wednesday that the two countries are "clarifying all the details of defense support, including air defense" at the working level. The continued provision of the air defense system is critical for the country. A US think tank, the Institute for the Study of War, said in its analysis on Wednesday that the "suspension of US aid to Ukraine will reinforce Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory" on winning the war of attrition. Russian forces are intensifying attacks across Ukraine. In June alone, they fired 5,438 long-range drones at Ukrainian cities and elsewhere, more than in any month since Russia's invasion. Ukraine is keenly watching whether the US will continue its military assistance to the country.
