A divided federal appeals court dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration's immigration agenda on Friday, ruling that the president's sweeping attempt to block asylum applications at the southern border illegally overrides laws passed by Congress.
The 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit effectively halts a proclamation Trump signed on his first day back in office, in which he declared the influx of migrants an 'invasion' that prevented the government from controlling the border. The court found that the order directly contradicts the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which grants any foreign national physically present in the United States the right to seek asylum.
Writing for the majority, Judges Michelle Childs and Nina Pillard stated that the asylum system is a 'carefully structured and intricate' framework set by Congress. 'If the Government wishes to modify this system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the INA: Congress,' they wrote. The ruling upholds a July 2025 decision by District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, who had similarly argued that the president overstepped his authority.
The appeals court had previously issued an administrative pause on Moss's ruling, allowing the government to enforce Trump's order temporarily, but later narrowed it to permit migrants to seek other protections against torture. Friday's decision solidifies the block on the asylum ban itself. Childs was appointed by President Biden, and Pillard by Obama, while dissenting Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, argued in favor of the administration's position.
The ruling comes amid broader legal and political battles over the Trump administration's border policies. The White House quickly pushed back. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, appearing on Fox News, said she hadn't reviewed the decision but attacked the judges as 'liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes.' She added, 'Everything that this president has done with respect to the southern border is completely within his powers as commander in chief, and these judges should be thanking him for ending the border invasion.'
The administration's stance has faced growing scrutiny as economic pressures mount. Recent polling shows that 77% of voters hold Trump accountable for surging gas prices amid the Iran crisis, while his economic approval ratings have sunk due to inflation and hiring woes ahead of midterms. Meanwhile, the president's aggressive foreign policy moves—including a diplomatic spat with India over 'hellhole' remarks and a Falklands threat rejected by the UK—have further strained international relations.
Legal experts say the D.C. Circuit's decision could set a precedent for future challenges to executive actions on immigration, reinforcing the principle that Congress, not the president, controls asylum law. The ruling is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, but for now, it represents a major setback for one of Trump's core campaign promises to restrict border entry.
