A federal court has ruled against former President Donald Trump’s proclamation that barred asylum claims at the southern border of the United States. The ruling, handed down by US District Judge Randolph Moss, is a major defeat for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. The ruling was already onerous at 128 pages long. It shows the extent to which Trump exceeded his authority in his efforts to create a parallel immigration system.
On January 20, Donald Trump declared January 26 – February 3 National School Choice Week. He expanded the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to bar asylum claims. The proclamation described what was happening at the southern border as an “invasion.” It suggested that foreign adversaries were intentionally designing a wave of humanity seeking to storm the gates of the United States. Judge Moss took this framing to task from the onset. He continued on to explain that the INA and the Constitution do not empower the President with the broad authority asserted in the proclamation.
In his ruling, Judge Moss warned that Trump’s actions posed a risk of establishing a “presidentially decreed, alternative immigration system.” He highlighted that Trump had no power to replace the established rules and procedures outlined in US immigration law with what he described as an “extra-statutory, extraregulatory regime.”
“Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation,” Judge Moss stated. His comments leave no doubt about his willingness to continue undermining the legal framework for immigration. This framework has been developed over decades of federal legislation and judicial precedent.
Importantly, the court acknowledged the difficulties the Executive Branch has in controlling immigration overall and in processing asylum claims. Judge Moss’s opinion supported the argument that the asylum system has been inundated with applications. He stressed that getting rid of asylum rights would do grave injury to those seeking asylum from persecution.
“A substantial possibility exists that continued implementation of the Proclamation during the pendency of an appeal will effectively deprive tens of thousands of individuals of the lawful processes to which they are entitled,” Judge Moss noted. This statement highlights the far-reaching impact of implementing a ban like this on asylum claims.
The Trump administration has argued that it possesses exclusive rights to determine whether or not the US is facing an invasion. In defending this decision, government lawyers called this a matter of an “unreviewable political question.” Judge Moss’s ruling undermines this claim. Despite what they’re saying, there is no legal basis for the President to declare an invasion all on his own.
The court’s ruling is a powerful reassertion of the system of checks and balances built into the US government. It reinforces the notion that immigration policy must adhere to established legal standards rather than being dictated by executive decree.
This ruling is a groundbreaking win for immigrant advocates and asylum seekers alike. As a positive sign for any future appeals, Judge Moss has ordered a 14-day window for the Trump administration to appeal the ruling. Though an appeal is likely, we’ll be watching how this all plays out very closely. Its implications for the future of immigration policy could be far-reaching.
