Judge Blocks Order Barring Asylum Access at Border and Gives Administration Two Weeks to Appeal

Al Arabiya

02-07-2025

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that President Donald Trump's order suspending asylum access at the southern border was unlawful, jeopardizing a cornerstone of the president's plan to curb migration. However, the ruling was put on hold for two weeks to allow the government time to appeal.
In a January 20 order, Trump declared the situation at the southern border an 'invasion' of America and suspended migrants' physical entry and ability to seek asylum indefinitely. US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington stated that his order blocking Trump's policy will take effect July 16, giving the Trump administration time to appeal. Moss wrote that neither the Constitution nor immigration law permits the president an 'extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime' for repatriating or removing individuals from the US without an opportunity to apply for asylum or other humanitarian protections.
The Department of Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but an appeal is likely. The president and his aides have frequently criticized court rulings that undermine his policies as judicial overreach. The ruling follows a sharp drop in illegal border crossings. The White House stated on Wednesday that Border Patrol made 6,070 arrests in June, down 30 percent from May and on pace for the lowest annual figure since 1966. On June 28, Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a stark contrast to late 2023 when arrests exceeded 10,000 on the busiest days. Arrests declined dramatically when Mexican officials increased enforcement within their own borders in December 2023 and again when then-President Joe Biden introduced stricter asylum restrictions in June 2024. They fell further after Trump became president in January, deploying thousands of troops to the border under a national emergency declaration.
Trump and his allies contend that the asylum system is being abused. They argue that it attracts people who know it will take years to process their claims in the country's backlogged immigration courts, during which time they can work and live in America. But supporters maintain that the right to seek asylum is guaranteed by US law and international commitments–even for those who cross the border illegally. They say that asylum offers vital protection for people fleeing persecution–a protection guaranteed by Congress that even the president lacks the authority to disregard. People seeking asylum must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social or political group.
In the executive order, Trump argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act empowers presidents to suspend the entry of any group they deem detrimental to US interests. Groups working with immigrants–the Arizona-based Florence Project, the El Paso, Texas-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Texas-based RAICES–filed the lawsuit against the government, arguing that the president was wrong to equate migrants arriving at the southern border with an 'invasion.' They also argued that Trump's proclamation amounted to the president unilaterally overriding 'the immigration laws Congress enacted for the protection of people who face persecution or torture if removed from the United States.'
However, the government argued that because both foreign policy and immigration enforcement fall under the executive branch, the declaration of an 'invasion' was entirely within the president's authority. 'The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,' the government wrote in one argument.