In a recent ruling, a federal court rejected Donald Trump’s proclamation that there was an “invasion” at the US-Mexico border. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the subsequent asylum ban was illegal. US District Judge Randolph Moss handed down a severe rebuke of the former president’s overreaching. He overstepped his authority when he suspended the ability to apply for asylum for thousands of people who were waiting to come into the United States legally.
On his first day in office, Trump signed a radically anti-immigrant proclamation telling officials to do whatever they could to make seeking asylum impossible. This decision effectively slammed shut the southern border. Tens of thousands of people, scores of whom had already been cleared to enter the country, were thrown into limbo. The ruling comes as part of a class-action lawsuit filed by 13 asylum seekers and three immigrants’ rights organizations, challenging the legality of Trump’s actions.
Judge Moss ruled for the plaintiffs on every single count. These people escaped persecution from countries such as Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey, and Peru. In his ruling, he said the president’s unilateral ban on asylum claims was unnecessary and unconstitutional. The legal challenge was not stopped by a stay issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on nationwide injunctions that would block presidential actions.
The just announced ruling provides the Trump administration a now very narrow window. They’ll have 14 days to appeal the FERC ruling and seek emergency relief from a federal appeals court. Should Moss’s decision remain intact, it will compel the administration to renew processing for asylum claims at the southern border.
The court’s decision highlighted the dire situations faced by many migrants who have been affected by Trump’s asylum ban. Accounts indicate that people deported from the United States are being turned away. At the same time, others have entered into Mexico, intentionally looking for jobs or places to live.
Rochelle Garza, one of the attorneys who worked on the case, announced, “This decision enforces human dignity. This is a victory for the rule of law!” She added, “It sends a clear message: the government cannot use cruelty as a weapon against people fleeing violence.”
Judge Moss’s ruling stands as a much needed reinforcement of long standing legal principles on immigration and human rights. In response to the larger implications of the decision, Javier Hidalgo, another attorney connected with the lawsuit, said the following.
“Today’s ruling makes clear three salient points that transcend immigration at the border and speak to who we are as Americans. First, we are a nation of laws. Second, the Trump administration’s sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our constitution and our legislative branch. And third, the judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy.” – Javier Hidalgo
The immigration court’s decision comes as advocates continue debating the future of immigration policy in the U.S. It underscores that government actions must remain within legal boundaries and respect individuals’ rights regardless of their nationality or circumstances.
Stephen Miller, who was Trump’s deputy chief of staff, tore into the lawsuit in unequivocal terms. He called it an effort to “bypass” the current decisions of the Supreme Court. He argued that those seeking asylum could be viewed as a “protected global ‘class’ entitled to admission into the United States,” suggesting that some legal frameworks should still apply even amid heightened border security concerns.
The approach to immigration taken by the former administration has deeply emphasized often racist enforcement measures as well as narratives of national security. As a piece of that broader tale, the southern border was painted as under attack, under siege, or experiencing an “invasion.” This story served to rationalize harsh actions taken to stop migration.
The ruling is a great victory in the continuing legal struggles over immigration policy during the trump regime. Most importantly, it reminds us once again that no claim of executive power can supersede long-standing laws that protect human rights.