Judge blocks order barring asylum access at border and gives
administration two weeks to appeal
[July 03, 2025]
By REBECCA SANTANA AND ELLIOT SPAGAT
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Wednesday that an order by
President Donald Trump suspending asylum access at the southern border
was unlawful, throwing into doubt one of the key pillars of the
president's plan to crack down on migration at the southern border. But
he put the ruling on hold for two weeks to give the government time to
appeal.
In an order Jan. 20, Trump declared that the situation at the southern
border constitutes an invasion of America and that he was “suspending
the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until
he decides it is over.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington said 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 gives the
president “an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating
or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity
to apply for asylum” or other humanitarian protections.
The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a
request but an appeal is likely. The president and his aides have
repeatedly attacked court rulings that undermine his policies as
judicial overreach.
Moss, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, acknowledged that the
government faces “enormous challenges” at the southern border and an
“overwhelming backlog” of asylum claims. But he returned several times
in his 128-page ruling to his opinion that the president is not entitled
to prohibit asylum.
Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union,
called the ruling a significant win.
“The decision means there will be protection for those fleeing horrific
danger and that the president cannot ignore laws passed by Congress
simply by claiming that asylum seekers are engaged in an invasion,” he
said.
The ruling comes after illegal border crossings have plummeted. The
White House said Wednesday that the Border Patrol made 6,070 arrests in
June, down 30% from May to set a pace for the lowest annual clip since
1966. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a sharp
contrast to late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days.
Arrests dropped sharply when Mexican officials increased enforcement
within their own borders in December 2023 and again when then-President
Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in June 2024. They
plunged more after Trump became president in January, deploying
thousands of troops to the border under declaration of a national
emergency.
[to top of second column]
|
A volunteer walks along a road next to the border wall separating
Mexico and the United States in Jacumba Hot Springs, Calif., Jan.
19, 2025. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)
Trump and his allies say the asylum system has been abused. They
argue that it draws people who know it will take years to adjudicate
their claims in the country’s backlogged immigration courts during
which they can work and live in America.
But supporters argue that the right to seek asylum is guaranteed in
U.S. law and international commitments — even for those who cross
the border illegally. They say that asylum is a vital protection for
people fleeing persecution — a protection guaranteed by Congress
that even the president doesn’t have the authority to ignore.
People seeking asylum must demonstrate a fear of persecution on a
fairly narrow grounds of race, religion, nationality, or by
belonging to a particular social or political group.
In the executive order, Trump argued that the Immigration and
Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of
any group that they find “detrimental to the interests of the United
States.”
Groups that work 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
coming to the southern border with an invasion.
And they 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.”
But the government argued that because both foreign policy and
immigration enforcement fall under the executive branch of
government, it was entirely under the president’s authority to
declare an invasion.
“The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is
an unreviewable political question,” the government wrote in one
argument.
___
Spagat reported from San Diego.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
