Latest news with #Proclamation
Axios
3 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Trump's asylum ban at U.S.-Mexico border "unlawful," judge rules
President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border enacted in an emergency immigration proclamation on his first day in office is "unlawful," a federal judge ruled Wednesday. Why it matters: Although U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss postponed his order from taking effect for 14 days to allow for appeal, the processing of asylum claims at the border would resume immediately if the ruling is not overturned. Trump administration officials have already said they'll appeal Moss' ruling that found the president exceeded his authority in a Jan. 20 proclamation that denied asylum protections at the border. The case seems likely headed for the Supreme Court, which last week in a majority ruling imposed new limits on lower courts' abilities to freeze federal policies. Driving the news: The proclamation that's titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion" states the Immigration and Nationality Act "provides the President with certain emergency tools" that have enabled Trump's action. Immigration groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and multiple people seeking asylum filed a class action lawsuit in February challenging the legality of the proclamation, calling the "invasion" declaration unlawful and false. "[N]othing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," Moss wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void." The Constitution doesn't give a president authority to "adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated," according to the Obama-appointed D.C. judge. Between the lines: The attempted asylum changes are among many immigration enforcement reforms the Trump administration is trying to make via executive order or rule changes without going to Congress. The Trump administration issued a new rule in January that dramatically expands expedited removal to immigrants who cannot prove they have been continuously living in the U.S. for over two years. That rule is facing a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Trump administration also is trying to make immigrants previously granted humanitarian parole eligible for expedited removal, and that's also facing a legal challenge. What they're saying: ACLU of Texas legal director Adriana Piñon said in a statement Moss' rejection of the Trump administration's "efforts to upend our asylum system" was "a key ruling" for the U.S. "This attempt to completely shut down the border is an attack on the fundamental and longstanding right to seek safety in the U.S. from violence and persecution." Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which also brought the suit, said in a statement that no president "has the authority to unilaterally block people who come to our border seeking safety." The other side: "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 Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House. "This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty," she said of the ruling. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal." White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on X claimed the order was trying to "circumvent" last week's Supreme Court ruling and that it declared undocumented immigrants as "a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States."
AsiaOne
3 days ago
- Politics
- AsiaOne
US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority, World News
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Wednesday (July 2) blocked President Donald Trump's asylum ban at the US-Mexico border, saying Trump exceeded his authority when he issued a proclamation declaring illegal immigration an emergency and setting aside existing legal processes. US District Judge Randolph Moss said in a 128-page opinion that Trump's January 20 proclamation blocking all migrants "engaged in the invasion across the southern border" from claiming asylum or other humanitarian protections went beyond his executive power. The ruling is a setback for Trump, a Republican who recaptured the White House promising a vast immigration crackdown. Since Trump took office, the number of migrants caught crossing illegally has plummeted to record lows. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge to Trump's asylum ban in February on behalf of three advocacy groups and migrants denied access to asylum, arguing the broad ban violated US laws and international treaties. Trump's border restrictions went beyond a similar ban put in place by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in 2024. Key parts of the Biden ban were blocked by a separate federal judge in May in a lawsuit also led by the ACLU. Moss said he would stay the effective date of a related order for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies to migrants who were subject to Trump's ban or could be in the future, part of a certified class in the litigation. Such class certifications remain unaffected by last week's Supreme Court decision reining in nationwide injunctions. Moss ruled that neither federal immigration law nor the US Constitution gave Trump the authority to disregard existing laws and regulations governing the asylum process even if stopping illegal immigration presented "enormous challenges." "Nothing in the [Immigration and Nationality Act] or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void." The Trump administration has clashed with federal judges since Trump returned to office, particularly those ruling against his hardline immigration policies. In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Moss did not have the authority to constrain Trump's actions to combat illegal immigration and that the administration would appeal. "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," Jackson said. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal." The US judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of government that include the executive and legislative branches, but Trump has tested that system of checks and balances. Lee Gelernt, a lead ACLU attorney working on the lawsuit, said the ruling would help ensure protections for migrants fleeing danger. "The president cannot wipe away laws passed by Congress simply by claiming that asylum seekers are invaders," Gelernt said. [[nid:719723]]
India Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, saying Trump exceeded his authority when he issued a proclamation declaring illegal immigration an emergency and setting aside existing legal processes.U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said in a 128-page opinion that Trump's January 20 proclamation blocking all migrants "engaged in the invasion across the southern border" from claiming asylum or other humanitarian protections went beyond his executive ruling is a setback for Trump, a Republican who recaptured the White House promising a vast immigration crackdown. Since Trump took office, the number of migrants caught crossing illegally has plummeted to record lows. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge to Trump's asylum ban in February on behalf of three advocacy groups and migrants denied access to asylum, arguing the broad ban violated U.S. laws and international border restrictions went beyond a similar ban put in place by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in 2024. Key parts of the Biden ban were blocked by a separate federal judge in May in a lawsuit also led by the said he would stay the effective date of a related order for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to decision applies to migrants who were subject to Trump's ban or could be in the future, part of a certified class in the litigation. Such class certifications remain unaffected by last week's Supreme Court decision reining in nationwide ruled that neither federal immigration law nor the U.S. Constitution gave Trump the authority to disregard existing laws and regulations governing the asylum process even if stopping illegal immigration presented "enormous challenges.""Nothing in the [Immigration and Nationality Act] or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."The Trump administration has clashed with federal judges since Trump returned to office, particularly those ruling against his hardline immigration a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Moss did not have the authority to constrain Trump's actions to combat illegal immigration and that the administration would appeal.'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," Jackson said. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal.'advertisementThe U.S. judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of government that include the executive and legislative branches, but Trump has tested that system of checks and Gelernt, a lead ACLU attorney working on the lawsuit, said the ruling would help ensure protections for migrants fleeing danger.'The president cannot wipe away laws passed by Congress simply by claiming that asylum seekers are invaders," Gelernt said.- EndsMust Watch
Japan Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Today
U.S. judge blocks Trump asylum ban at U.S.-Mexico border
FILE PHOTO: Migrants are escorted across the Hidalgo International Bridge as they are deported after crossing into the U.S. without authorization, in McAllen, Texas, U.S., January 27, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Becerril/File Photo By Ted Hesson A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, saying Trump exceeded his authority when he issued a proclamation declaring illegal immigration an emergency and setting aside existing legal processes. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said in a 128-page opinion that Trump's January 20 proclamation blocking all migrants "engaged in the invasion across the southern border" from claiming asylum or other humanitarian protections went beyond his executive power. The ruling is a setback for Trump, a Republican who recaptured the White House promising a vast immigration crackdown. Since Trump took office, the number of migrants caught crossing illegally has plummeted to record lows. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge to Trump's asylum ban in February on behalf of three advocacy groups and migrants denied access to asylum, arguing the broad ban violated U.S. laws and international treaties. Trump's border restrictions went beyond a similar ban put in place by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in 2024. Key parts of the Biden ban were blocked by a separate federal judge in May in a lawsuit also led by the ACLU. Moss said he would stay the effective date of a related order for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies to migrants who were subject to Trump's ban or could be in the future, part of a certified class in the litigation. Such class certifications remain unaffected by last week's Supreme Court decision reining in nationwide injunctions. Moss ruled that neither federal immigration law nor the U.S. Constitution gave Trump the authority to disregard existing laws and regulations governing the asylum process even if stopping illegal immigration presented "enormous challenges." "Nothing in the [Immigration and Nationality Act] or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void." The White House, Justice Department and U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lee Gelernt, a lead ACLU attorney working on the lawsuit, said the ruling would help ensure protections for migrants fleeing danger. 'The president cannot wipe away laws passed by Congress simply by claiming that asylum seekers are invaders," Gelernt said. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump's asylum ban at southern border
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Trump's asylum ban at the southern border, determining it ran afoul of immigration laws protecting the rights of those seeking refuge in the U.S. The decision blocks a Day 1 order from Trump seeking to end asylum for all but those who entered the U.S. at ports of entry – arguing the move was needed to prevent an 'invasion' at the border. But U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss said Trump went beyond his authority in drastically limiting asylum for those fleeing persecution and danger. Moss found Trump's order violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which lays out strict guidelines for who qualifies for asylum and how they can seek the protections – including by crossing between ports of entry. 'Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,' Moss wrote in his 128-page opinion. The judge rejected that Trump had inherent presidential authority over admission decisions into the country, even if federal law didn't give him the power. 'To hold otherwise would render much, if not most, of the INA simply optional,' wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Obama. Moss postponed his ruling for 14 days, which gives the administration an opportunity to ask an appeals court to intervene. The legal battle began in early February, just days into Trump's presidency and soon after he signed the proclamation on Inauguration Day. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, 13 anonymous asylum seekers sued alongside three immigration nonprofits, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Project. The administration had agreed to not deport any of the 13 individuals as the litigation progresses, but Wednesday's ruling now covers anyone impacted by Trump's proclamation nationwide. The judge's decision does not, however, apply to people already removed from the country. Moss noted those cases pose 'difficult questions' and will be addressed later. A number of migrants who have crossed the border in recent years have done so turn themselves over to Border Protection officials in order to make the claim. But the uptick in those seeking the protections over the last several years has made the process a target for Republicans, who argue the system is being abused. Asylum seekers cannot be granted the protections if they are fleeing what is deemed 'generalized violence' and many who seek the status do not receive it when their case is considered by the Department of Homeland Security or in immigration court. But a yearslong backlog in reviewing such cases means applicants may spend years in the U.S. before their claims are fully weighed. During the first Trump administration, Trump used Title 42 to block migrants from seeking asylum at the border, closing off the process and allowing them to be swiftly expelled instead. Former President Biden kept those same limitations in place for over two years.
