A federal appeals court just threw a wrench into President Trump’s bold plan to tighten the screws on asylum at the southern border.
On Friday, a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Trump administration cannot simply bypass laws protecting migrants from deportation to places where they face persecution or torture, though the decision only applies to those already on U.S. soil, CBS News reported.
This saga kicked off in January when President Trump, fresh back in the White House, proclaimed to shut down the asylum system at the southern border. He argued the nation faced an overwhelming surge of unauthorized migrants, a claim that resonates with many who see border security as a top priority. But let’s be real—calling it an "invasion" might dial up the drama a notch too far for some.
Under this directive, border officials began turning away migrants seeking humanitarian protection without even hearing their claims. It’s a tough stance, no doubt, meant to deter unauthorized crossings, and administration officials point to a historic drop in border apprehensions as proof it’s working.
In July, Border Patrol reported a mere 4,600 migrants caught crossing illegally, the lowest monthly figure since records started in 2000. Trump’s team also credits additional troop deployments to the border for this decline, a move that’s hard to argue with when the numbers are this stark.
But not everyone’s cheering. The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups slammed the policy as harsh and damaging to vulnerable migrants, filing a lawsuit that set the stage for this courtroom showdown. Turns out, actions have consequences, even for well-intentioned border crackdowns.
Enter U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, who in July ruled that Trump’s proclamation violated laws mandating the government to consider claims for humanitarian protection. His order would have halted enforcement for a broad group of migrants, a decision that had progressive activists popping champagne a bit too soon.
The D.C. Circuit panel, however, stepped in on Friday, lifting its pause on Moss’ ruling but scaling it back. They limited relief to asylum-seekers already on American soil, a compromise that gives the administration some breathing room. It’s a half-win for Trump, but a win nonetheless.
The panel, made up of Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard (Obama appointees) and Gregory G. Katsas (a Trump pick), didn’t fully agree on every detail. Still, all three stood firm that the proclamation couldn’t ignore laws on "withholding of removal" or protections under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. That’s a line even a tough-on-border president can’t cross.
Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin didn’t mince words, stating, “The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level.” She blasted Moss’ earlier ruling as the work of a “rogue district judge” undermining national safety and ignoring higher court guidance. Well, if that’s not a spicy take, what is?
Let’s unpack that—while the administration’s frustration with judicial overreach is understandable, painting a judge as a lone cowboy might not win over the skeptics. The data shows border crossings at historic lows, so clearly something’s working. Still, dismissing legal checks as threats to security feels like a stretch when laws are there to protect everyone.
The court also clarified that while U.S. law allows but doesn’t require granting asylum, Trump’s policy can’t block migrants from seeking other mandatory protections with stricter criteria. It’s a nuanced ruling—tough on policy loopholes but not a complete shutdown of the administration’s goals. A bit of a tightrope walk, wouldn’t you say?
Looking ahead, the judges have set expedited proceedings to hash out the case’s merits, with briefs due from both sides by Sept. 26. This isn’t the final word, just another chapter in a long fight over border policy.
For now, the Trump administration can still use the proclamation to limit asylum access for those not yet on U.S. soil, a partial victory that keeps some control in their hands.
Meanwhile, advocates for migrants will keep pushing, arguing that every person deserves a fair shot at safety. It’s a debate that’s not going away anytime soon.
