A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled against President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit asylum applications at the southern border. The judge blocked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from carrying out the executive proclamation that declared an “invasion” and emergency, which would have imposed restrictions on asylum seekers.
The Legal Ruling
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that President Trump exceeded his legal authority. In his detailed opinion, Moss found that the president acted “contrary to law” by bypassing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
This law governs the process of seeking asylum and prohibits the president from unilaterally blocking asylum seekers without proper regulations.
Moss argued that Trump’s proclamation attempted to prevent certain individuals, or “covered aliens,” from applying for asylum without any established regulations supporting such a decision.
Moss, appointed by President Barack Obama, pointed to legal principles laid out by late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. The judge emphasized that the legality of presidential actions could be reviewed, especially when they involve subordinate officials attempting to implement those actions.
Moss rejected the Trump administration’s claim that no judicial review was available and emphasized that judicial review of such matters is necessary to ensure that the rule of law is respected.
Impact on the Plaintiffs
The lawsuit was brought forward by seven individuals who remain in the U.S., as well as three nonprofit organizations that advocate for immigrant and refugee rights. The plaintiffs argued that the proclamation’s restrictions violated their legal rights to seek asylum.
Moss ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and certified them as a class. This means that their case could represent others who are similarly affected by the policy.
Judge Moss specifically noted that the Trump administration’s claim that the asylum restrictions were necessary was flawed. The administration’s assertion, which relied on the need for emergency measures to combat an “invasion,” was contrary to the Constitution’s vision and undermined respect for the law, Moss argued.
The judge also dismissed the administration’s claim that the term “invasion,” as used in the proclamation, was consistent with historical definitions from the founding era, noting that it had not been adequately supported.
Consequences for the Trump Administration
Moss ruled that the Trump administration’s proclamation and its implementing guidance were unlawful. The judge found that these actions unlawfully suspended or restricted asylum access, protections under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the existing regulatory processes for applying for asylum.
Furthermore, the DHS’s guidance for asylum officers was deemed “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning it lacked a rational explanation or legal support.
Despite the ruling, Moss did not immediately enforce his decision. He delayed the effect of his order for two weeks to give the government time to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
This ruling represents a significant setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to curb asylum applications at the southern border. It reinforces the principle that presidential proclamations and actions must adhere to existing laws and be subject to judicial review.
The case could lead to further legal battles, with the Trump administration seeking to overturn the decision through higher courts. In the meantime, the decision offers a measure of relief to those seeking asylum in the U.S. and ensures that their legal rights are protected.
