Federal Appeals Court Blocks Asylum Ban at Southern Border
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a presidential proclamation that sought to bar migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border from seeking asylum.
The 2-1 decision on Friday upheld a lower court ruling, setting the stage for a potential appeal to the full circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is separately weighing a related legal question over the definition of when an asylum seeker "arrives in" the United States.
Appeals Court Ruling: Asylum Suspension Violates Law
Key Findings
"The court found that the presidential proclamation and related federal rules conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which grants the right to apply for asylum to individuals physically present in the United States."
- Judge J. Michelle Childs, appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Nina Pillard, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. The opinion stated that the INA does not authorize the president to summarily remove migrants or suspend asylum applications.
- Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, partially dissented, arguing that while the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they would face persecution, broad denials of asylum applications are permissible.
Case History
The case originated from a proclamation issued by President Trump on his first day back in office in January 2025, which declared a state of invasion at the southern border and aimed to end asylum processing. In July 2024, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled the policy unlawful, stating that the president cannot create an alternative immigration system that supplants congressional statutes. The appeals court decision affirmed that ruling.
Government Response
- White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized the ruling as "unsurprising" and attributed it to politically motivated judges.
- White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that the Department of Justice would seek further review.
- The Department of Homeland Security expressed strong disagreement with the ruling.
Advocacy Group Reactions
Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union: "This decision will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration’s horrific asylum ban."
- Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council noted that previous legal actions had already paused the asylum ban, so the ruling may not change conditions on the ground significantly.
- Nicolas Palazzo of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center said the ruling affirms that presidential actions cannot supplant the rule of law.
Supreme Court: The 'Metering' Policy Question
Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments regarding the legality of the "metering" policy, which allowed U.S. immigration officials to deny processing asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Policy Background
The metering policy originated under former President Barack Obama in 2016, was expanded by President Donald Trump, and was rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021. The policy allowed federal agents at the border to turn back asylum seekers before they physically entered U.S. soil, citing overburdened facilities. The Trump administration has indicated it may revive the policy if border conditions warrant.
The Core Legal Dispute
The central question is the interpretation of federal law, which states that a migrant who "arrives in the United States" may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration official. The specific question before the court: Are asylum seekers stopped on the Mexican side of the border legally considered to have "arrived" in the United States?
Arguments Presented
Challengers:
Attorney Kelsi Corkran argued that a person "arrives in the United States at a port of entry when they are at the threshold of the port's entrance – about to step over."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew comparisons to the 1939 MS St. Louis incident and suggested that denying access to asylum seekers at the border line, while allowing others entry, might violate federal refugee protection law.
Government:
Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri argued that the policy is an "important tool" for managing border surges and that a person cannot "arrive in the United States while you're still standing in Mexico."
Suri cited a 1990s case involving Haitian asylum seekers intercepted at sea as precedent.
Lower Court Rulings
- A federal judge in California initially ruled the policy unlawful.
- In 2024, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, ruling that "arrives in the United States" includes individuals encountering officials at the border, regardless of which side they are on. The court concluded that metering violated the obligation for border agents to inspect all asylum seekers who "arrive" at designated crossings.
Supreme Court Considerations
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the definition of "arrived," asking how close one must be to the border or what constitutes arrival if not physical crossing.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether a live controversy exists, given that the current administration does not have concrete plans to reinstate the policy. Despite this, the Trump administration continues to support the policy in court, aiming to retain it as a potential tool.
- A decision in this case is anticipated by the end of June.
Related Supreme Court Cases
The Supreme Court is also slated to review other immigration policies initiated by the Trump administration, including an order concerning birthright citizenship and efforts to end temporary deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians.