A US appeals court has blocked an executive order issued by Donald Trump that sought to suspend asylum access at the country’s southern border, dealing a significant legal setback to a central element of his immigration policy.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that existing immigration law guarantees individuals the right to apply for asylum, and that the president cannot override those protections through executive action. The judges found that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not grant authority to suspend asylum procedures or replace them with alternative processes created by the executive branch.
The case stems from a proclamation issued by Trump in 2025, in which he characterised the situation at the southern border as an “invasion” and attempted to halt both entry and asylum claims until further notice. The court determined that while the president has certain powers to restrict entry, those powers do not extend to eliminating statutory rights granted by Congress, including the ability to seek asylum or protection from torture.
The ruling emphasised that the structure and intent of immigration law make clear that Congress did not authorise such sweeping executive control over asylum processes. Judges concluded that mandatory legal protections for migrants cannot be bypassed through unilateral presidential action.
The administration has indicated it will challenge the decision, with the US Department of Justice expected to seek further review, potentially by the full appeals court or the US Supreme Court. Officials argued that the order fell within presidential authority and criticised the judiciary’s interpretation.
Supporters of migrant rights, including the American Civil Liberties Union, welcomed the ruling, stating that it reinforces longstanding legal protections for individuals fleeing persecution. Advocates argued that denying access to asylum procedures could place vulnerable people at serious risk and undermine fundamental humanitarian safeguards embedded in US law.
While the decision may not immediately change conditions on the ground—since earlier legal actions had already paused enforcement—it represents a broader judicial affirmation that asylum rights cannot be unilaterally curtailed by executive order. The case now sets the stage for further legal battles over the limits of presidential authority in immigration policy.
