A federal appeals court dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump's immigration policy on Friday by declaring 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 through which the president aimed to restrict the right of migrants to request protection upon arrival 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 override it.
The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 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 authority, through proclamation, to temporarily suspend the entry of certain foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to nullify the mandatory process" established by law.
The newspaper The Washington Post emphasized that the court determined that the president “cannot override that right,” highlighting that any attempt to amend it must go through Congress.
Furthermore, the judges considered 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) welcomed the ruling.
His lawyer Lee Gelernt stated that the decision is “essential for those fleeing danger and who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum applications 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 defeat 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 by law." Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by Barack Obama, concurred with her view.
The ruling was not unanimous. Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, issued a dissenting vote in which he stated that migrants could access 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 determined to uphold the fundamental principle that the United States belongs to the American people, not to millions of individuals trying to evade our laws."
The court's decision suspends the implementation of the executive order and marks a new chapter in the legal battle over immigration policy in the United States, a terrain where the Executive and the courts have been at odds for years.
Everything now suggests that the case could escalate to the Supreme Court, where the true extent of presidential power in relation to current immigration laws will be determined.
Filed under: