“Denying asylum in one stroke, without any information about the affected individuals, necessarily ignores every risk of persecution they face when forced back to where they came from.”
A federal appeals court ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to broadly restrict asylum claims at the southern border, finding the president does not have the authority to override federal immigration law through executive action. The Biden administration accepted all claims and allowed claimants to wait in the US for their court date, often more than 5 years into the future.
In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that determined the administration exceeded its authority by seeking to unilaterally bar migrants from applying for asylum, including those who entered the country illegally.
“Denying asylum in one stroke, without any information about the affected individuals, necessarily ignores every risk of persecution they face when forced back to where they came from. The challenged decision thus necessarily denies asylum even to foreign individuals who are sure to face persecution without it,” the majority opinion read.
Upon taking office for his second term, President Trump issued a proclamation describing the situation at the southern border as an “ongoing invasion,” suspending entry for individuals crossing between ports of entry and barring them from seeking asylum. The court’s ruling emphasized that federal immigration law provides exceptions allowing individuals to apply for asylum, including provisions that permit applications within one year of arriving to the US.
“The asylum statute thus makes plain that the right to apply for asylum is broadly available to all foreign individuals present or arriving in the United States unless expressly restricted from applying,” the ruling stated.
The decision could allow migrants from countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti who claim asylum to continue seeking entry to the US, despite efforts by the Trump administration to tighten border enforcement.
In a dissenting opinion, Trump-appointed judge Justin Walker said that he “agreed with much of the majority’s thoughtful opinion,” such as the determination that the executive branch cannot send people to countries where they could be persecuted. However, he noted that the lower court had “wrongly issued relief to potentially millions... without standing” and that Trump had “already exercised his lawful discretion to deny all asylum applications. So he may foreclose the application process as futile.”
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
