Court upholds block on Trump's asylum ban at US-Mexico border
Trump had sought to end asylum access for all migrants except those who entered the US at official ports of entry, claiming the change was necessary to stop what he described as an "invasion" at the southern border. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in February on behalf of nonprofit organizations.
In July, US District Judge Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled against the Trump-era ban, saying it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), The Hill reported. Moss concluded that the former president overstepped his authority by severely restricting asylum for migrants fleeing danger and persecution.
While the DC Circuit panel--comprising Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard, and Gregory G. Katsas--initially paused Moss's decision, it has now lifted the stay and allowed parts of the district court's ruling to take effect. However, the panel also narrowed the scope of Moss's decision, allowing the government to continue using elements of Trump's proclamation to bar certain migrants from accessing the asylum system, The Hill noted.
Reacting to the decision, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CBS News, "The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. A rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions."
"The Trump Administration is committed to restoring integrity to our immigration system and to our justice system," McLaughlin added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times of Oman
4 hours ago
- Times of Oman
"Nuclear submarines are in Russian region," says Trump
Washington DC: US President Donald Trump has said that nuclear submarines have been deployed in Russia. "They are in the region, yeah -- where they have to be," Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One in Allentown, Pennsylvania on Sunday. When asked if there was anything Russia could do to avoid sanctions at this point, Trump said, "Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed." He further said that he was looking for fairness and not leverage when he was imposing tariffs. "I'm not looking for leverage -- I'm looking for fairness. We want to see reciprocal wherever we can, and all I can say is this: our country will be taking in hundreds of billions of dollars." Trump said on Friday that he was ordering two US Navy nuclear submarines to "appropriate regions," in response to remarks by Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's Former President and current deputy chairman of its Security Council. In what he called an effort to be "prepared," Trump said in a Truth Social post that he had "ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that." Trump later on Friday said the repositioned nuclear submarines were moved "closer to Russia," CNN reported. He said Thursday he intended to place new sanctions on Moscow, and called Russia's attacks on Ukraine "disgusting." In an earlier social media message, Trump said the Ukraine war "should have never happened," as per CNN. "This is Biden's War, not 'TRUMP's.' I'm just here to see if I can stop it!" Trump wrote. The president did not specify what type of submarines were being moved or where to, and the Pentagon usually reveals little about any of its subs' movements, CNN reported.
Times of Oman
5 hours ago
- Times of Oman
Harvard University under fire as US Congressional probe exposes deep ties to Chinese Communist Party
Washington DC : Harvard University, once revered as a bastion of academic excellence and intellectual freedom, is now facing a growing scandal that threatens its reputation and integrity. A congressional investigation has revealed that the Ivy League institution maintained formal partnerships with Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-controlled entities for over a decade, relationships that critics say directly assisted in the training of future CCP leadership. According to a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Reps. John Moolenaar (R-MI), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and Elise Stefanik (R-NY) accused Harvard of actively collaborating with organisations under the control of the CCP's Central Organisation Department. This department is responsible for indoctrinating officials with "Xi Jinping Thought" and selecting leaders for key positions within China's authoritarian regime. Of particular concern is the Harvard Kennedy School's long-standing cooperation with the Chinese Executive Leadership Academy Pudong, an institution controlled by the CCP. Whistleblower testimony indicates that cadres from China's party and government institutions were sent to Harvard as part of their official training, raising alarms about foreign influence on American soil. "Harvard's formal partnership with a CCP-controlled school to train their future leaders raises serious concerns about the CCP's influence in American institutions," said Rep. Moolenaar. "We are committed to uncovering the full extent of these relationships to ensure transparency and protect national interests." The revelations come at a time when Harvard is already under scrutiny. The university is reportedly considering a USD 500 million payout to resolve a standoff with the Biden administration over campus anti-Semitism complaints and controversial DEI policies. But lawmakers argue that financial settlements cannot undo the damage caused by Harvard's entanglement with entities implicated in human rights abuses. In April, The Free Beacon exposed Harvard's past training of members from the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a CCP paramilitary group sanctioned by the U.S. for its role in the genocide of Uyghur Muslims. That report prompted congressional leaders to threaten Harvard's tax-exempt status. Now, Harvard faces a deadline of August 7 to provide Congress with all records relating to its interactions with CCP-affiliated bodies, including any financial or material exchanges.
Observer
17 hours ago
- Observer
Global shift towards recognising Palestine
The diplomatic landscape of the Israel-Palestine conflict is undergoing a major shift, following announcements by Canada, the United Kingdom and France to formally recognise a Palestinian state by September 2025. As longtime advocates of a two-state solution, this move by three G7 nations signals growing frustration with Israel's conduct and a revived international push for justice. While not a final resolution, it offers hope for a process long stalled by Israel's continued occupation and military aggression. The Palestinian demand for statehood is rooted in a history of dispossession. The 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed separate Arab and Jewish states, was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab nations, triggering the 1948 war. What followed was the Nakba — a catastrophe during which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes. Israel exceeded its allotted territory, and scholars such as Ilan Pappé have described this as an act of ethnic cleansing. In 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) declared independence, gaining recognition from much of the Global South. Western powers, however, withheld recognition, arguing that statehood must result from negotiations. This allowed Israel to entrench its occupation while avoiding meaningful accountability. A recent High-Level International Conference on the Two-State Solution, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia at the UN, reflected rising international discontent. The conference reaffirmed 'unwavering support' for Palestinian statehood. Yet Israel refused to engage meaningfully, and the US, under President Trump's renewed administration, dismissed the effort as 'unproductive and ill-timed.' Secretary of State Marco Rubio's response highlighted America's ongoing role in shielding Israel. The conference had been delayed due to Israel's intensifying confrontation with Iran, illustrating its destabilising role in the region. The new positions of the UK and Canada signal a departure from this status quo. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has tied recognition to halting military operations in Gaza and freezing settlement expansion in the West Bank. Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, while supportive, has called for reforms within the Palestinian Authority. These conditions indicate a genuine effort toward a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. They reflect international frustration over Israel's repeated obstruction of peace and the severe humanitarian toll in Palestine. Failed peace efforts — sabotaged by settlement expansion and Israel's refusal to negotiate in good faith — make clear the need for a new path. The United States, by contrast, remains aligned with Israel. Rubio has criticised his allies' moves as 'clumsy' and imposed sanctions on the Palestinian Authority while continuing to send billions in military aid to Israel. This double standard enables Israel to avoid its obligations under international law and perpetuate occupation with impunity. Public sentiment underscores the urgency of change. A June 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that only 21 per cent of Israelis believe peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian state is possible — reflecting deep disillusionment. Still, other polls suggest most Israelis would support mutual recognition under a comprehensive peace deal. Among Palestinians, hope endures. A May 2025 PCPSR poll showed that 68 per cent believe an independent state will eventually be realised. Yet many also recognise that symbolic recognition without actual freedom from occupation is insufficient. What they seek is justice and liberation, not empty declarations. In the countries recognising Palestine, public opinion is largely supportive. A 29 July 2025 YouGov poll found that 45 per cent of Britons back UK recognition, compared to just 14 per cent opposed. Though recent polling is limited in Canada and France, their governments' decisions reflect wider humanitarian concern and political will. Human rights organisations have long championed Palestinian statehood as essential to international law. Reports from Human Rights Watch (A Threshold Crossed, 2021) and Amnesty International (Israel's Apartheid Against Palestinians, 2022) conclude that Israeli policies meet the legal definition of apartheid and constitute crimes against humanity. This new diplomatic momentum is not a final solution, but it is a pivotal moment. For Palestinians, it renews hope and validates their struggle for dignity. For Israel, it delivers a clear message: the world is no longer willing to ignore its violations. If global pressure continues — and justice becomes the guiding principle — this could mark the beginning of a long-overdue reckoning. History teaches us the cost of silence. The question is whether the world is finally ready to act. Badr al Dhafari The writer is head of proofreading, translation at Oman Observer
