WASHINGTON (AP) — A notable win for immigrants seeking refuge, a U.S. appeals court on Friday dismissed former President Donald Trump's executive order that suspended asylum access—a central component of his strategy to curb migration at the southern U.S. border.
The ruling, delivered by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reaffirmed that immigration laws confer the innate right to apply for asylum at the border, contradicting the stance taken by the Trump administration.
According to the panel, existing laws do not permit the president to impose his procedures to circumvent the established rights of asylum seekers. Judge J. Michelle Childs noted, 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 decision comes as a significant blow to Trump’s immigration policies, particularly as the courts are viewed as a critical check on executive authority. The response from the administration was not immediate, leaving the aftermath of the ruling uncertain.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt commented, calling the appellate ruling vital for those fleeing peril and denied the chance to present their asylum claims under the previous administration's actions, which he described as unlawful and inhumane.
One dissenting voice in the ruling came from Judge Justin Walker, a nominee of Trump, who acknowledged protections against removing individuals to countries where they could face persecution but indicated the administration had the right to broadly deny asylum applications.
In the case were other prominent judges, including Cornelia Pillard, nominated by President Barack Obama, highlighting the bipartisan nature of judicial oversight in immigration issues.
