Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge on Wednesday dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, blocking his administration’s effort to severely restrict access to asylum for migrants entering the United States — a move the judge said exceeded the president’s legal authority.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that the asylum restrictions enacted via a presidential proclamation on Trump’s first day of his second term are unlawful, saying the directive violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and overstepped the powers granted to the executive branch.
“The president lacks the inherent constitutional authority to supplant federal statutes governing removals,” Moss wrote in his 58-page opinion. “To hold otherwise would render much, if not most, of the INA simply optional.”
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by 13 asylum seekers and three immigrant rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), challenging Trump’s sweeping asylum restrictions.
Judge Finds Asylum Order “Arbitrary and Unconstitutional”
Trump’s January proclamation barred most non-citizens crossing the southern border from applying for asylum or “withholding of removal,” even if they faced persecution in their home countries. He cited an alleged “invasion” at the southern border and instructed officials to “repel, repatriate, or remove” migrants under the new directive.
But Judge Moss found that neither the INA nor the Constitution gives the president authority to rewrite immigration law or implement an alternative system outside the one created by Congress.
“The INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country,” Moss wrote.
He also rejected the idea that the president could impose blanket limits on who can apply for asylum, ruling that federal law specifically protects the right of any person on U.S. soil to apply for protection.
Class Action Relief Granted, Implementation Paused
In a significant move, Moss certified a class of asylum seekers affected by the policy, meaning the ruling could apply broadly to potentially thousands of people. He delayed the effect of his ruling for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A decision on a separate class — those already deported under the proclamation — was postponed for further review.
“This ruling not only reaffirms the right to seek asylum, it also sends a clear message that the president cannot act as lawmaker-in-chief,” said Lee Gelernt, lead ACLU attorney in the case. “Congress — not the president — writes immigration law.”
Political and Legal Context
Trump’s asylum crackdown is just one part of a wider effort to restrict immigration during his second term. He has invoked rare wartime authorities like the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan nationals accused of gang ties and dismantled Biden-era deportation protections for nearly a million migrants.
Since retaking office in January, Trump has made immigration a central theme of his presidency again, claiming a border “invasion” and vowing mass deportations.
His policies have triggered numerous legal challenges, many of which are still winding their way through the courts.
What’s Next?
The Trump administration is expected to seek an emergency stay of Judge Moss’s ruling from the appellate court in Washington, D.C. If that fails, the decision could force the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate standard asylum procedures, even for those who crossed the border illegally.
In the meantime, immigration attorneys say the ruling is a vital reaffirmation of the rule of law amid what many see as an attempt by the White House to unilaterally reshape America’s immigration system.
“We are talking about people who are fleeing persecution, violence, and war,” said Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center. “This decision puts humanity and the law above political theater.”
The case — and the broader clash over immigration authority — now heads to the appeals court, setting up what could be another high-profile showdown over presidential power in the months ahead.
