A federal appeals court dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump's immigration policy on Friday by ruling illegal his attempt to suspend access to asylum at the U.S. southern border, one of the hallmark measures of his agenda to tighten immigration control.
According to a report by the AP agency, the ruling blocks the executive order with which the president sought to restrict migrants' right to request protection upon arriving in the country.
The court agreed with a lower instance in determining that federal immigration laws guarantee that right and that the president cannot unilaterally annul it.
The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not authorize the president to impose alternative mechanisms for expelling applicants.
In the words of Judge J. Michelle Childs, nominated by former President Joe Biden, “the power, through proclamation, to temporarily suspend the entry of certain foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the mandatory process” established by law.
The newspaper The Washington Post highlighted that the court determined that the president “cannot evade that right,” emphasizing that any attempt to amend it must go through Congress.
Furthermore, the judges found that the executive order aimed to impose "procedures of its own creation," something that exceeds the powers of the Executive.
From a legal standpoint, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) celebrated the ruling.
His attorney, Lee Gelernt, stated that the decision is "essential for those fleeing danger and who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the illegal and inhumane executive order of the Trump administration."
For its part, CNN reported that the decision, made by a vote of two in favor and one against, “represents a significant setback for Trump’s immigration agenda” and anticipates a possible confrontation in the Supreme Court.
In the majority opinion, Judge Childs emphasized that "preventing foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States from applying for asylum (…) is incompatible with what is established in the law." Joining her opinion was Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by Barack Obama.
The ruling was not unanimous. Judge Justin Walker, nominated by Trump, issued a dissenting vote in which he argued that migrants could have access to other forms of protection, although not necessarily asylum.
At the same time, the White House defended the president's immigration policy on social media.
In a message posted on X, he stated: “Americans finally have a president committed to defending the fundamental principle that the United States belongs to the American people, not to millions of people trying to circumvent our laws.”
The judicial decision puts the implementation of the executive order on hold and marks a new chapter in the legal battle over immigration policy in the United States, an area where the Executive Branch and the courts have been at odds for years.
Everything now indicates that the case could escalate to the Supreme Court, where the real extent of presidential power in relation to current immigration laws will be defined.
Filed under: