A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a Trump administration policy that barred individuals crossing the southern border from seeking asylum, ruling that neither the U.S. Constitution nor federal immigration law grants the president the authority to unilaterally make such a decision.
U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss issued a 128-page opinion stating that former President Donald Trump’s proclamation — issued on his first day in office — overstepped executive authority by attempting to override laws passed by Congress.
“The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,” Moss wrote in his decision.
The 2017 policy effectively imposed a blanket denial of asylum claims made by migrants entering through the U.S.-Mexico border. Asylum protections, enshrined in U.S. law since 1980, permit individuals fleeing persecution in their home countries to seek refuge in the United States, provided they can demonstrate a credible fear for their safety.
“This is a flat-out ban on all asylum,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, in an earlier interview with NPR. “This is way beyond anything that even President Trump has tried in the past.”
The ACLU, along with the Texas Civil Rights Project and the National Immigrant Justice Center, filed the lawsuit challenging the proclamation in February. The plaintiffs argued that the policy endangered thousands of vulnerable individuals fleeing violence, political unrest, or other forms of persecution.
The judge’s ruling is set to take effect in two weeks, although the Trump administration is expected to appeal. In response to the decision, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted on X, formerly Twitter, calling the judge “a Marxist” and criticizing the ruling for allegedly expanding asylum protections too broadly.
Miller wrote: “A Marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (e.g. a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global ‘class’ entitled to admission into the United States.”
Immigrant advocacy organizations hailed the decision as a major legal victory, while criticizing the administration’s prior depiction of the border crisis.
“The repeated characterization of asylum seekers as an ‘invasion’ is both inaccurate and dangerous,” said a spokesperson for the National Immigrant Justice Center.
The legal battle is likely to continue in higher courts as the administration seeks to reinstate restrictions.
