Trump's efforts to expel asylum seekers at the border blocked by judge
July 2 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to stop implementing a proclamation to expel asylum seekers at the border that he had signed shortly after beginning his second term.
Trump had signed the proclamation, titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," on January 20, his first day in office. It invoked emergency presidential powers to expel migrants before allowing them to apply for asylum. A coalition of immigrants and immigrant rights groups then sued the administration in February.
U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss has now granted the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment, finding that Trump's proclamation and implementation guidance from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In his proclamation, Trump had said that the screenings of asylum seekers under the INA -- enacted by Congress -- can be "wholly ineffective" but that the law grants the president "certain emergency tools" if he were to find that the entry of any class of immigrants would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
"The court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country," Moss wrote.
But he added that the Immigration and Nationality Act "provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country."
But Moss found that the INA "provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country" and that the government lacked the statutory or constitutional authority to adopt an "alternative immigration system" to the one outlined by Congress.
He stayed his ruling for 14 days in anticipation of a likely appeal from the Trump administration, and deferred judgment on whether the government should grant relief to plaintiffs who are no longer in the United States and other aspects of the lawsuit.The judge's ruling also did not include an injunction at this stage and ordered the parties to submit a joint status report proposing a briefing schedule on unresolved issues.
It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in the case of Trump v. CASA Inc., a landmark ruling that determined that lower courts generally lack authority to issue "nationwide" or "universal" injunctions unless they are essential to fully remedy the specific plaintiffs' harms.
While an injunction has not yet been granted in this case, officials in the Trump administration have criticized Moss as a "rogue" judge seeking to "circumvent" the Supreme Court.
"To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a Marxist judge has declared that all potential future illegal aliens on foreign soil (e.g. a large portion of planet Earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States," Stephen Miller posted on social media.
Gene Hamilton, the former deputy White House counsel, called the judge's decision "judicial insurrection," while Attorney General Pamela Bondi said that the Justice Department would fight the "unconstitutional power grab.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
11 minutes ago
- CNBC
How the retail industry is responding to Trump's trade deal with Vietnam
The retail industry is breathing a sigh of relief after it appeared to avoid the worst case scenario on Vietnam tariffs. But some executives believe the tentative trade deal President Donald Trump announced Wednesday is still bad for business and could have a chilling effect on consumer spending. "It's a lot better news than where we were on Liberation Day," one CEO of a popular consumer brand told CNBC after Trump said tariffs on Vietnamese imports would be 20%, down from the 46% levy he proposed on April 2, then later suspended. The new rate would be double the 10% duty currently in place. Another executive called the news "bad" but agreed that a 20% tariff was better than the 46% duty Trump originally imposed, however unrealistic the proposed rate was. "I guess Trump needs 'positive' news," a third executive said. "I think things are going to evolve. Let's see if this is definitive." Trump's announcement on Wednesday came only days before the 90-day suspension of the steep tariffs he proposed in April expires next week, and as his administration scrambles to strike agreements with dozens of trading partners. Even so, he did not say when the deal with Vietnam would take effect, or whether both sides have agreed to the tariff rates. In the months between Trump's April 2 tariff rollout and his announcement on Wednesday, retail executives in the apparel and footwear industries fretted over the potential that Vietnam imports could face tariffs nearly as high as the cumulative 55% duties for Chinese imports. Over the last decade, some of America's top retailers, including Gap, American Eagle and Nike, have all reduced their reliance on China to shield themselves from both high tariffs and the region's geopolitical turbulence. Many sought refuge in Vietnam, where the factories, some owned by Chinese businesses, are known to produce products at a similar quality and price as China. They also started manufacturing in other countries in southeast Asia, such as Cambodia, Bangladesh and Malaysia. Those countries were facing tariffs of 49%, 37% and 24%, respectively, under Trump's April plan, but are subject to a 10% duty for now. Vietnam is now the second largest supplier for footwear, apparel and accessories sold into the U.S. market, according to the industry trade group the American Apparel & Footwear Association. It has become an essential part of the footwear supply chain, on pace to become the largest supplier of shoes to the U.S. in 2025, according to the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, another industry trade group. If Trump's proposed 46% tariff on Vietnam had taken effect, it would mean much of the industry's work to leave China would have been for naught. Some companies are relieved the tentative deal would set the levy at 20% and the announcement agreement is also a sign that Cambodia, Malaysia and Bangladesh could reach similar frameworks. "Twenty percent is a sigh of relief," said Sonia Lapinsky, a partner and managing director at AlixPartners who advises fashion brands. "There's some positivity and some optimism that this is manageable. So at least there's that. This isn't business destroying, which is great. However, this does have real implications, right?" Most companies have plenty of tools to offset the impact of tariffs, such as working with their suppliers to share costs. But to avoid major hits to their profit margins, many including Nike are planning to raise prices. It's still unclear how those hikes will affect consumer spending because it will take time for the increases to trickle down in the supply chain. AlixPartners previously created pricing models for CNBC that examined how the price of Vietnamese-made sweaters and shoes could rise under Trump's proposed tariffs — if retailers do not pass any of the cost on to suppliers or shoppers. At a 10% levy, the cost of a $95 pair of men's shoes could rise by $7.42 to $102.42. With a 20% duty in place, the cost increase would be even larger. Many executives worry any tariff hike of this magnitude will be bad for businesses and consumers. Paul Cosaro, the CEO of Picnic Time, a supplier to top retailers like Target, Kohl's and Macy's, said if the clocks were wound back to April and Trump said there'd be a 20% tariff on Vietnamese imports, "no one would've been happy." "There could be threats of a 46% tariff and you come back with 20 and it's going to sound better but… it's just more money coming out of the consumers' pockets at the end of the day and they have less money to spend on picnic baskets and coolers and things like that," said Cosaro, who raised his prices between 11% and 14% earlier this year to offset the cost of China tariffs. "It's not good for the consumer. Ultimately, it's just increasing the prices … I don't think that's good news."
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Jeffries speaks for hours on House floor against tax bill
Politics Jeffries speaks for hours on House floor against tax bill July 3, 2025 | 2:49 PM GMT House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) said on July 3 Trump's bill would 'hurt the quality of life' for Americans if passed.
Scientific American
15 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Republicans' Megabill Will Put U.S. Climate Goals Out of Reach
CLIMATEWIRE | The rollbacks in clean energy incentives in Republicans' budget plans will put the brakes on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions by throttling the growth of renewables and electric vehicles, analyses from four research firms showed. The extent of the Republican cuts is still being determined as the House takes up the Senate version of the GOP budget legislation. But early modeling by research groups shows the bill that passed Tuesday in the Senate would lift emissions of carbon dioxide by 8 to 12 percent from levels expected over the next decade if Democrats' climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (H.R. 5376 (117)), remained in place. That figure is close to the 8 to 11 percent increase over the same period under the bill passed last month by House Republicans, according to figures calculated by the Rhodium Group. Those estimates don't take into account the impacts the Trump administration's regulatory actions would have on the carbon dioxide emissions released from power plants and tailpipes. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. President Joe Biden pledged to cut greenhouse gases 61 to 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2035 — a target his administration said was needed to keep the world's climate from careening further off track. 'These [bills] push those goals far out of reach,' said Jesse Jenkins, a Princeton University professor who runs the Rapid Energy Policy Evaluation and Analysis Toolkit that modeled the effects of the bills. 'These bills basically, substantively, dismantle the policy enacted by the previous administration and Congress,' he added 'And so they push us back onto the much slower decarbonization trajectory.' House and Senate Republicans will now meld the two iterations of their bill in hopes of meeting President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline to enact the cornerstone of his policy agenda. It's unclear exactly how the clean energy tax provisions will unfold: House GOP fiscal hard-liners railed against Senate tweaks that they claimed would continue showering green energy with incentives. The U.S. is the world's No. 2 emitter of greenhouse gases behind China and has been the largest historical contributor to climate change. Either of the Republicans' bills would imperil global goals of limiting temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution, the target laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump has vowed to pull the United States out of that pact for the second time. And the legislation would all but seal the fate of more ambitious attempts to keep that temperature increase below 1.5 C, a point at which scientists warn the effects of climate change become more severe and irreversible — and which many scientists say is already out of reach. Many of those climate impacts already are occurring in the form of fiercer hurricanes, severe heatwaves, unruly wildfires and devastating drought. Global temperatures set their second consecutive record last year – and surpassed the 1.5 C increase for the entire calendar year for the first time. The Inflation Reduction Act was the nation's most aggressive attempt to wrestle with the U.S.' role in heating the planet. Biden and fellow Democrats hailed it as a bid by the U.S. to join the global competition for the emerging clean tech and vehicles sectors, an arena in which China has taken a sizable lead. Trump has railed against efforts to battle climate change and dismissed the IRA's clean energy incentives as the 'Green New Scam,' as he urged lawmakers to eliminate those policies. The IRA had been expected to help bring U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down by 43 to 48 percent in 2035, according to Jenkins' REPEAT modeling project. Robbie Orvis, senior director of modeling and analysis at climate policy think tank Energy Innovation, said those reductions are quickly disappearing. 'Emissions will increase a lot,' he said. 'You'll have less clean energy deployed. And what will replace that will be a mix in the power sector of gas and coal.' Jenkins' REPEAT modeling projects that when combined with Trump's plans to repeal emissions limits for power plants, vehicles and other sources, the House and the Senate bills would spike U.S. greenhouse gases 25.7 and 25.2 percent in 2035, respectively, compared with Biden-era policies. Climate research firm Rhodium Group found the House bill would lead to 'meaningfully higher greenhouse gas emissions levels' — between 500 and 730 million metric tons greater in 2035. In a high-emissions scenario under the House bill, overall U.S. greenhouse gases would fall 4 percentage points by 2035 from 2024 levels — or 23 percent below 2005 levels — which amounts to 'effectively no progress on decarbonization,' Rhodium said. A low-emissions outcome would push U.S. emissions 39 percent below 2005 levels in 2035, still short of what climate scientists say is needed for the U.S. to do its part in keeping temperatures in check. Other analyses confined their findings to the bills while maintaining rules that Trump has not yet formally rescinded. Think tank Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and research firm Greenline Insights said the Senate version would increase U.S. emissions 8 percent by 2035 from current trajectories. Energy Innovation arrived at the same 8-percent bump — raising emissions by 280 million metric tons — while it found the House version boosted 2035 emissions by 310 million metric tons, or 8.9 percent. That 30 million metric ton spread is roughly the same amount of annual greenhouse gas emissions from 7 million gasoline-powered cars or the energy use of 4 million homes. The two chambers' bills offer starkly different sunsets for the clean energy incentives. The Senate iteration allowed solar and wind power developers to claim full credits for projects that begin construction within one year of bill enactment or are placed in service before 2028 — though beginning construction in that first year effectively creates a four-year runway to receive the credits before projects must be placed into service. The House required projects to commence construction within 60 days and begin operating before 2029. The Senate also extended battery storage incentives and allowed developers to more easily finance projects by transferring credits. The Senate GOP stripped a new tax on solar and wind projects if their component parts are traceable to Chinese manufacturers from the final bill — Energy Innovation published its modeling Monday and therefore included that provision. The 940-page bill would also end consumer credits for purchasing new and used electric vehicles, which automakers have said would slow production and jeopardize jobs. While solar and wind power will continue getting built under the Senate bill, it would slow the pace and raise the cost, Orvis said. Natural gas power plants will run more often, operating at 52 percent capacity in 2035 compared with 35 percent currently. Removing consumer incentives for electric vehicles would not significantly affect emissions because EPA tailpipe standards provided a floor for shifting the market off internal combustion engines, Orvis said. But those standards are not expected to stand — the EPA on Monday sent a proposed rule that is expected to revise that regulation to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
