D.C. Appeals Court Rules Trump Order Banning Southern Border Asylum Claims Unlawful
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel on Tuesday ruled President Trump's order banning most asylum claims at the southern U.S. border illegal, blocking its enforcement while appeals proceed.
The majority opinion was written by Judge J. Michelle Childs and joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Judge Justin Walker agreed that protections against torture cannot be stripped but partly dissented, saying the president may lawfully deny asylum more broadly. The court said Department of Homeland Security guidance that told officers not to ask credible-fear questions and barred people who crossed between ports from applying for asylum unlawfully circumvented immigration law. The ACLU-led class action that prompted the case can now press for relief while the administration seeks rehearing by the full court or Supreme Court review.
The episode traces back to a 2018 Trump proclamation that sought to bar asylum for people who crossed the border illegally and to Executive Order 14163, signed January 20, 2025, which suspended asylum access and mandatory reviews at the southern border. The ACLU sued in February 2025, and a federal judge blocked the suspension in July 2025 while the government appealed. Immigration courts later accumulated a backlog exceeding 3.3 million cases by February 2026, with asylum cases making up over two million and a FY2025 asylum grant rate of 9.9 percent.
The White House called the ruling politically motivated and said the Justice Department will seek further review, while ACLU lawyers called the decision essential for people denied hearings. The panel's decision is formally issued but its implementation remains paused as the court considers rehearing requests and any Supreme Court appeal. Social and legal debate is likely to continue as the case moves through the courts.
📊 Relevant Data
As of February 2026, the U.S. immigration court backlog stood at 3,318,099 cases, of which 2,322,671 involved asylum applications.
new court cases recorded so far in FY 2026 — TRAC Immigration
The asylum grant rate in U.S. immigration courts was 9.9% in FY2025, the lowest since at least FY2015.
Figure 3. Defensive Asylum Applications Filed by Country — Congressional Research Service
U.S. presidents have invoked INA section 212(f) at least 90 times since 1981 to suspend or limit entry of certain aliens.
Securing the Border — U.S. Department of Homeland Security
📌 Key Facts
- A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel formally ruled that President Trump’s executive order/proclamation banning most asylum claims at the U.S. southern border is illegal, holding the president cannot use proclamation power to override Congress’s asylum statutes; the majority opinion was written by Judge J. Michelle Childs and joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard.
- Judge Justin Walker concurred in part and dissented in part: he agreed the government cannot strip mandatory protections against refoulement (protection-from-torture/credible-fear procedures) but argued the president may lawfully deny broad categories of asylum applications.
- The court struck down Department of Homeland Security implementing guidance that declared people who cross between ports “not permitted to apply for asylum” and that created new 'direct repatriation' and 'expedited removal' procedures instructing asylum officers not to ask credible-fear questions.
- The ruling rests on the Immigration and Nationality Act’s text, structure and history, concluding the INA does not grant the expansive removal authority the administration claimed and that the proclamation and guidance unlawfully circumvent statutory removal and asylum procedures.
- The case stems from an ACLU-led class action filed in February 2025; ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said the decision is essential for people who were denied hearings under the order.
- The administration can seek rehearing en banc or petition the Supreme Court; the court has stayed implementation while further review is considered, so the ban cannot take effect immediately while those options are pursued.
- White House officials criticized the ruling — Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the judges of political motives and defended presidential authority, and White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said DOJ will seek further review — while DHS said it strongly disagrees; advocacy groups including the American Immigration Council framed the decision as reaffirming Congress’s control over asylum rights and noted prior injunctions had already paused the policy.
📰 Source Timeline (7)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- PBS states that the federal appeals court ruled President Trump’s executive order banning asylum claims at the U.S. southern border is illegal.
- The segment emphasizes that the three-judge panel found immigration law gives people the right to apply for asylum and that the president cannot override those procedures.
- It notes that the administration can now either seek rehearing from the full appeals court or petition the Supreme Court.
- Article confirms the ruling is by a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel that explicitly holds the president cannot use proclamation power to override the Immigration and Nationality Act’s mandatory asylum and removal procedures.
- Provides quoted language from Judge J. Michelle Childs’ majority opinion explaining that the INA’s text, structure, and history do not grant the expansive removal authority the administration claimed.
- Details White House reaction including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s Fox News comments accusing the judges of political motives and asserting Trump acted within his commander-in-chief powers.
- Reports that White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson says DOJ will seek further review and that DHS issued a statement strongly disagreeing with the decision and reiterating Trump’s border-security priorities.
- Clarifies that the panel’s order is stayed while the court considers any request for rehearing or Supreme Court review, so the ruling does not formally take effect immediately.
- Includes advocacy reaction from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council, noting prior injunctions already paused the ban and framing the decision as confirming Congress’s control over asylum rights.
- ABC7/ABC copy presents the opinion as having ‘blocked’ the executive order but clarifies the order does not formally take effect until after the D.C. Circuit considers any rehearing request.
- The article includes fresh White House reaction quotes from press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Fox News calling the ruling unsurprising and judges politically motivated, plus a statement from White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson that DOJ will seek further review.
- It adds detailed quotations from the majority opinion emphasizing that the president’s proclamation power does not implicitly authorize overriding mandatory INA asylum procedures.
- It more fully outlines Judge Justin Walker’s partial dissent, noting his view that broad denials of asylum applications are permissible even though deportations to persecution and stripping mandatory procedures are not.
- The appeals court has now issued a formal ruling declaring President Trump's ban on most asylum claims at the southern border illegal, not merely maintaining a preliminary injunction.
- The court held that the president cannot override Congress's asylum statutes by proclamation and that Department of Homeland Security guidance denying access to asylum between ports conflicts with federal law.
- The ruling clarifies next steps by indicating the administration may seek rehearing en banc or Supreme Court review, but the ban cannot take effect while that process unfolds.
- Identifies the panel judges and their positions: majority opinion by Judge J. Michelle Childs, joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard, with Judge Justin Walker concurring in part and dissenting in part.
- Details Walker's view that the president cannot strip protection-from-torture procedures but, in his view, may lawfully deny all asylum applications.
- Specifies DHS's implementing guidance that declared border crossers between ports "not permitted to apply for asylum" and created new 'direct repatriation' and 'expedited removal' procedures where asylum officers were told not to ask credible-fear questions.
- Clarifies the legal basis of the majority's decision, citing the Immigration and Nationality Act's text, structure, and history and holding that the proclamation and guidance unlawfully circumvent INA removal procedures.
- Notes that the ACLU-led class action was filed in February 2025 and that the administration can now seek rehearing en banc or Supreme Court review.
- Associated Press/PBS account confirms the D.C. Circuit panel has formally blocked President Trump's asylum suspension executive order and held that the president cannot circumvent Congress's asylum framework.
- The article quotes directly from Judge J. Michelle Childs' majority opinion emphasizing that the power to suspend entry by proclamation does not implicitly authorize overriding the Immigration and Nationality Act's mandatory asylum and removal procedures.
- The piece highlights ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt's reaction calling the ruling essential for those denied hearings under the order, and briefly outlines Judge Justin Walker's partial dissent that allows broad asylum denials but agrees mandatory anti-torture protections cannot be stripped.