The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 2-1 that President Trump’s executive order suspending asylum at the US-Mexico border is illegal. The decision is a major blow to a signature piece of the administration’s immigration agenda and sets up a likely Supreme Court challenge.

Why it matters

The ruling goes to the heart of a constitutional question: can the president use emergency proclamations to override laws Congress wrote into the Immigration and Nationality Act? The court said no. The answer will likely be tested again at the Supreme Court, where the current conservative majority has shown deference to executive power on immigration.

The majority opinion

Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Childs held that the INA gives migrants the right to apply for asylum at the border and the president cannot eliminate that right by proclamation.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process,” Childs wrote.

The court found the administration cannot remove people under “procedures of his own making” or curtail the statutory process for adjudicating anti-torture claims.

The dissent

Judge Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, partially dissented. Walker agreed that immigrants have protections against removal to countries where they face persecution. But he argued the administration retains broad authority to deny asylum applications, distinguishing between the right to apply and the right to receive asylum.

The backstory

Trump signed the executive order on Inauguration Day in January 2025, declaring the situation at the southern border an “invasion” and suspending the “physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum. The order has been the legal foundation for turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry.

What each side argues

Supporters of the ruling say the INA is clear: Congress created a right to apply for asylum regardless of how a person enters the country. The president’s emergency powers do not extend to rewriting immigration statutes.

The administration argues that the president’s constitutional authority over national security and border protection, combined with existing statutory powers, allow broad action when the border situation constitutes a national emergency.

What happens next

The administration can ask the full DC Circuit for en banc review or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Legal observers expect a direct Supreme Court appeal, given the significance of the case and the administration’s urgency to maintain border policy.

The ruling does not take immediate effect. The court is expected to issue a stay pending appeal, meaning the asylum ban will likely remain in force until the Supreme Court weighs in.