An executive order by President Donald Trump, which barred migrants from seeking asylum at the southern U.S. border, has been ruled unlawful by a federal judge, throwing a major wrench into Trump’s crackdown on immigration.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that Trump’s asylum suspension exceeded presidential authority. While the judge put his order on hold for two weeks to allow the government to file an appeal, the ruling casts serious legal doubt over a central pillar of Trump’s immigration agenda.
In his January 20 executive proclamation, Trump described the migrant situation at the southern border as an “invasion” and announced he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their access to asylum protections until he deemed the emergency over.
RELATED STORIES
READ ALSO: Lawsuit accuses Trump of racially targeted immigration raids in Southern California
Judge Moss, appointed by former President Barack Obama, rejected the administration’s legal basis for the sweeping restriction, writing in his 128-page opinion that neither the U.S. Constitution nor federal immigration statutes empower the president to create an “extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum” or humanitarian protection.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
His decision will take effect on July 16, barring any successful government appeal, AP reported.
“The decision means there will be protection for those fleeing horrific danger and that the president cannot ignore laws passed by Congress simply by claiming that asylum seekers are engaged in an invasion,” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case on behalf of several immigrant advocacy organizations.
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of legal aid groups, including the Florence Project in Arizona, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, and RAICES in Texas. They argued that Trump had improperly equated asylum-seeking migrants with a military invasion, thereby undermining legal protections Congress designed for those fleeing persecution or torture.
“The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,”
the government countered, insisting that the executive branch has broad discretion over both immigration enforcement and foreign policy.
The Trump administration also cited the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the president to block the entry of foreigners deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” But immigrant rights advocates argue that asylum is a legal obligation under both U.S. and international law, even for migrants who cross the border unlawfully.
Applicants for asylum must prove they face persecution on specific grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Though the White House did not immediately comment on the ruling, it is widely expected to appeal. Trump and his supporters have long accused asylum seekers of abusing the system, claiming it enables migrants to enter the U.S. and remain for years while their cases await review in backlogged immigration courts.
Judge Moss acknowledged the government’s challenges, including a surge of migrants and a strained asylum system, but maintained that those pressures did not justify bypassing legal safeguards.
While legal battles over asylum policy unfold, the backdrop has shifted dramatically. Arrests at the southern border have plunged since Trump returned to office in January 2025, deploying troops and invoking a national emergency. Border Patrol figures show 6,070 arrests in June, a 30% drop from May and on pace for the lowest annual total since 1966. On June 28, just 137 arrests were recorded, a sharp contrast to late 2023 when daily figures topped 10,000.
This sharp decline followed a series of developments: stepped-up enforcement by Mexican authorities in late 2023, President Joe Biden’s restrictive asylum policies in mid-2024, and Trump’s renewed hardline stance this year.
Still, immigration rights groups say the right to seek asylum remains non-negotiable.
READ ALSO: Obama, Bush and Bono decry USAID shutdown, blame Trump administration
