Washington, D.C. – A federal judge has dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies by blocking a key policy that barred migrants who cross the US-Mexico border from seeking asylum.
The ruling, issued by US District Judge Randolph Moss, determined that the Trump administration had overstepped its authority by bypassing established immigration laws passed by Congress.
Judge Moss’ Ruling
In a sharp decision delivered on Wednesday, Judge Moss ruled that the President cannot unilaterally create an alternative immigration system that overrides existing immigration statutes.
“The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,” Moss wrote, striking down the Trump administration’s policy.
The ruling is particularly notable because it targets one of Trump’s signature policies designed to reduce asylum claims at the southern border.
The administration has previously cited this policy as a contributing factor to the sharp decline in illegal border crossings, with June 2023 seeing just over 6,000 encounters, according to US Border Patrol data.
Legal Challenge and the ACLU’s Role
The policy, which effectively shut down access to asylum at the southern border, was challenged earlier this year by immigrant rights groups.
These included the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. They argued that the presidential proclamation endangered lives by preventing people from seeking refuge in the US.
The lawsuit raised the question of whether the President’s power could override protections guaranteed by Congress for those fleeing persecution. The ruling represents a victory for immigrant rights and the rule of law, with ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt calling it “an enormous victory for those fleeing danger.”
Court’s Interpretation of the Law
Judge Moss emphasized that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the Constitution grants the President or his representatives the authority to deny access to asylum for individuals who have already entered the US. “Nothing in the (Immigration and Nationality Act) or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,” Moss’s ruling states.
Stay and Potential Appeal
Despite the win for immigrant advocates, Moss stayed his decision for 14 days to allow time for the Trump administration to appeal the ruling.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin dismissed the ruling, calling Moss a “rogue district judge” and expressing confidence that the administration would be vindicated by a higher court.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also criticized the ruling, accusing the judge of being “Marxist” and suggesting that it could lead to a situation where foreign nationals are granted protection under US law.
Miller emphasized the importance of protecting US sovereignty, stating, “The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored.”
The Trump Administration’s Argument
The Trump administration had argued that the President possesses broad authority under federal law to restrict the entry of individuals deemed detrimental to US interests, especially under the premise of a national security or public health emergency at the border.
Tensions were evident during oral arguments in April in a packed federal courtroom, where Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers contended that the proclamation was not subject to judicial review.
Judge Moss pushed back against this argument, questioning whether a presidential order to take extreme actions—such as shooting migrants—would be immune from judicial scrutiny, raising broader constitutional concerns.
The Impact of the Ruling
While the Trump administration may appeal, this decision is a key moment in the ongoing legal battles over immigration policy. The ACLU and other advocates see the ruling as a step toward protecting the rights of individuals seeking asylum and reaffirming the power of Congress over immigration laws.
This case has exposed ongoing tensions between executive authority and the constitutional rights of migrants, especially those fleeing violence and persecution.