A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Friday that President Donald Trump's executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border is unlawful, siding with a lower court and rejecting the administration's claim that the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the president broad authority to deny migrants the right to apply for protection.
The ruling strikes at a central pillar of Trump's border enforcement strategy. On Inauguration Day 2025, the president declared the situation at the southern border an "invasion of America" and signed an executive order "suspending the physical entry" of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides the crisis has ended. The appeals court found that Congress never intended to hand the executive branch that kind of power.
The decision does not formally take effect until the court considers any request for reconsideration. The administration can ask the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case or take it directly to the Supreme Court, a path the White House appears likely to pursue.
Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden nominee, wrote the key passage in the opinion. As the Associated Press reported, Childs stated:
"The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA's mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals."
The panel went further. In its opinion, the court concluded that "the INA's text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts." In practical terms, the judges said the president cannot remove migrants under "procedures of his own making," cannot suspend their right to apply for asylum, and cannot curtail procedures for adjudicating anti-torture claims.
Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama nominee, also heard the case. The third member of the panel, Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent. Walker agreed the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they would face persecution or strip them of mandatory procedural protections against removal. But he said the law permits the administration to issue broad denials of asylum applications, a narrower reading that would still give the executive branch significant leverage.
That split matters. Walker's partial agreement means even the Trump appointee on the panel acknowledged limits on presidential authority over removal, a fact that could shape how the Supreme Court views the case if it arrives there. The high court has already been drawn into several Trump-era border policy disputes this term.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded at a press gaggle outside the White House on Friday, telling reporters she had not yet seen the ruling but was not surprised by it:
"It's unsurprising to me. We 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."
Leavitt called the asylum system a "scam" and said "tens of millions of illegal aliens" had exploited it, arguing that migrants could "fraudulently" claim asylum. She described Trump's executive order as "completely within his powers as commander in chief." The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Leavitt's framing reflects the administration's core argument: that the INA gives any president the authority to suspend entry of groups deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The appeals court flatly rejected that reading, drawing a sharp line between the power to suspend entry and the power to override statutory protections Congress built into the asylum process.
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who has been a lead voice challenging Trump immigration policies, said in a statement that the appellate ruling is "essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration's unlawful and inhumane executive order." The broader legal and political conflicts around immigration enforcement have intensified in recent months, with courts and advocacy groups clashing repeatedly over the scope of executive power at the border.
Gelernt's language, "unlawful and inhumane", previews the rhetoric that will follow this case as it moves toward the Supreme Court. But rhetoric is not law. The substantive question is whether Congress, in writing the INA, intended to let presidents shut down asylum entirely by proclamation. Two of the three judges on this panel said no. One said the answer is more complicated.
The administration has two immediate options. It can petition the full D.C. Circuit for en banc rehearing, or it can go straight to the Supreme Court. Given the political stakes and the administration's public posture, a Supreme Court appeal seems probable. The order remains blocked in the meantime, it does not formally take effect until reconsideration requests are resolved.
This is not the only front where the administration is fighting courts over immigration policy. Federal appeals courts have recently weighed in on state-level attempts to regulate ICE operations, and the White House has faced legal challenges on everything from border construction to enforcement priorities.
The Trump executive order rested on a straightforward premise: that the president can declare a border emergency and suspend asylum access until he decides the emergency is over. The appeals court's opinion does not dispute that the border situation is serious. It disputes that seriousness gives the president the legal authority to bypass a statutory framework Congress enacted. That distinction, between the scope of a real problem and the scope of presidential power to address it, is the question the Supreme Court will likely have to settle.
Meanwhile, the broader institutional tug-of-war between the executive branch and the judiciary continues to play out across multiple cases. The administration has faced judicial resistance on matters ranging from White House construction disputes to enforcement operations, and leaks of internal Supreme Court documents have only heightened the political temperature around the judiciary itself.
For conservative voters who sent Trump back to the White House in part to secure the southern border, the ruling is a frustrating reminder of how the legal system can delay executive action on urgent problems. The asylum system has been exploited for years. Leavitt's description of it as a "scam" resonates with millions of Americans who watched illegal border crossings surge under the prior administration.
But the path to fixing a broken system runs through Congress, not around it. If the INA does not give the president the tools he needs, the answer is to change the statute, not to hope that judges will look the other way when the executive branch claims powers the text does not clearly grant. Walker's partial dissent suggests there may be a narrower legal path the administration can walk. Whether the White House takes that path or pushes for a sweeping Supreme Court ruling will say a lot about how this fight ends.
Courts can block executive orders. They cannot secure the border. That job still belongs to a president and a Congress that have yet to agree on how to get it done.
