Judge blocks Trump's asylum ban at southern border saying he exceeded authority
In a day-one executive order, Trump declared the situation at the southern border constitutes what he called an invasion of America. The president said he was 'suspending the physical entry' of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over.
Federal District Judge Randolph Moss has now blocked that order, writing, 'the President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.'
Moss added that neither the Constitution nor immigration law gives the president 'an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum' or other humanitarian protections.
The order will take effect July 16, giving the Trump administration two weeks to appeal.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the merits of the case, called Moss's ruling a 'hugely important decision.'
'Not only will it save the lives of families fleeing grave danger, it reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers,' Gelernt said in a statement.
The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request but an appeal is likely. The president and his aides have repeatedly attacked court rulings that undermine his policies as judicial overreach.
The ruling comes after illegal border crossings have plummeted. The White House said Wednesday that Border Patrol made 6,070 arrests in June, down 30 percent from May. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a sharp contrast to late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days.
Arrests dropped sharply when Mexican officials increased enforcement within its own borders in December 2023 and again when then-President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in June 2024. They plunged more after Trump became president in January, deploying thousands of troops to the border under declaration of a national emergency.
Trump and his allies say the asylum system has been abused. They argue that it draws people who know it will take years to adjudicate their claims in the country's backlogged immigration courts during which they can work and live in America.
But supporters argue the right to seek asylum is guaranteed in federal law and international commitments — even for those who cross the border illegally. They say asylum is a vital protection for people fleeing persecution — a protection guaranteed by Congress that even the president doesn't have the authority to ignore.
People seeking asylum must demonstrate a fear of persecution on a fairly narrow grounds of race, religion, nationality, or by belonging to a particular social or political group.
In the executive order, Trump argued the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.'
Groups which work with immigrants — the Arizona-based Florence Project, the El Paso, Texas-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Texas-based RAICES — filed the lawsuit against the government, arguing the president was wrong to equate migrants coming to the southern border with an invasion.
They also argued Trump's proclamation amounted to the president unilaterally overriding '... the immigration laws Congress enacted for the protection of people who face persecution or torture if removed from the United States.'
But the government argued that because both foreign policy and immigration enforcement fall under the executive branch of government, it was entirely under the president's authority to declare an invasion.
'The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,' the government wrote in one argument.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Footage shows aftermath of Israeli strike on Gaza school turned shelter
At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike on the Mustafa Hafez school, which shelters displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, and 20 others were wounded, according to health officials at al-Shifa hospital. Witnesses said women and children were among those killed who had been sheltering at the site. It came as Hamas said it was studying what Donald Trump called a 'final' ceasefire proposal for Gaza
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump has hung Ukraine out to dry
Volodymyr Zelensky thought he had done everything right. When Donald Trump demanded he sign away Ukraine's mineral rights in exchange for military aid, he did it. When the White House decided that offering Moscow an unconditional ceasefire was the only way to stop the war, Zelensky quickly acquiesced. When the US asked Ukraine to hold off using Nato military equipment against targets inside Russia, they agreed. In the end it didn't make any difference. This week Politico broke the news that the US Department of Defence had paused key weapons deliveries already agreed to and funded by Congress under the Biden administration; this leaves Ukrainian cities defenceless against Russian missile strikes and its troops dangerously low on ammunition. Trump has already clearly signalled his opposition to future arms shipments from the US. But cutting off arms already promised and paid for seems cruel and gratuitous. 'This decision was made to put America's interests first following a DOD review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe,' explained deputy White House press secretary Anna Kelly. 'The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned – just ask Iran.' But drill down into the list of weapons withheld this week and the claim that the US is protecting its own dwindling supplies makes little sense. For a start, almost all the pledged weapons are located in American military stockpiles in Poland, not in the US. The Defence Department has blocked the transfer of 250 GMLRS missiles to Ukraine – yet Lockheed Martin makes 14,000 a year. Ukraine will receive 8,496 fewer rounds of 155 mm artillery shells – which is less than a week's production by US industry. And it's hard to see how holding back 25 Stinger missiles is going to help Make America Great Again. There is some debate over whether the delivery freeze comes on the orders of the White House, or whether it's a screw-up by the bean counters in America's defence department. Indeed, just last week Trump signalled that he was willing to find some more Patriot batteries for Kyiv – the holy grail of missile defence that Ukraine so desperately needs as Russia ramps up its missile attacks to unprecedented levels of intensity and frequency. But in the big picture it doesn't matter. Long-term, Trump has made it clear that the US is out of the Ukraine weapons supply game, and he believes that the war must end in diplomacy. Sending more weapons to Kyiv, Trump apparently believes, will only add fuel to the conflict. Trump is wrong, for one simple reason. Ukraine is currently fighting a defensive war on the ground, and slowly losing it in part because of a lack of firepower. Its only successful attacks are targeted at Russian airfields and military factories, and these strikes are undertaken using ingenious weapons of Ukraine's own devising and manufacture. And Kyiv has signalled that it's ready for an immediate ceasefire if Russia follows suit. Ukraine needs weapons to defend against continuous Russian attacks, not to prolong the war. Ukraine's biggest practical problem is that European promises to step into the breach and fill the gap left by the US have so far yielded little in the way of actual arms deliveries. European militaries have been hollowed out by years of budget cuts, and whatever meagre stockpiles existed three years ago have been quickly consumed in the killing fields of Donbas. Pledges to increase defence spending to five per cent of GDP agreed at the Nato summit earlier this month will boost Europe's military industrial complex – indeed the market capitalisation of Rheinmetall, the German tank manufacturer, have risen above Volkswagen's. But that extra investment will take years to make a difference. Europe's immediate answer has been to buy US arms and donate them to Ukraine. But if Washington is not able or willing to send crucial armaments to Kyiv, as this week's withheld shipments suggests, then Zelensky's situation is worse than his remaining allies feared.
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
Veteran Democrat Jack Lew expresses dismay at US deficit but blames Joe Biden too
Why you can trust Sky News Jack Lew is as decorated as they come when it comes to US economic leaders from the Democratic side of the aisle having served as President Obama's treasury secretary, and before that as his director of the office for management of the budget (OMB), a role he also held in the Clinton White House, when he was instrumental in the administration balancing the budget in the late 1990s - the last time that has happened. As President Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" makes its way through Congress, Mr Lew expressed dismay at the direction of the US deficit. "The simple rule that in good economic times you ought to come as close to paying your bills in the current sense as possible, certainly not running a deficit more than 3% of GDP, is the right rule." "Then in a bad time, you don't worry about nickels and dimes. You don't worry about a COVID response or a financial crisis response," Mr Lew said on The Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost. "What you can't do is never worry about it because then the hole just gets deeper and deeper and deeper. And that's why we're now looking at a deficit that is going to grow to 6% of GDP with this bill. That's terrible." 2:24 Of course, the deficit, having leapt during COVID-19 at the end of the first Trump administration, did stay elevated through the recent Biden administration, when Lew served as ambassador to Israel, and he said he felt that Biden's Build Back Better Bill was not a great decision. "The reality, the political reality at the time when there was a bill that in my own view was too large, it gave cash to people who were already working at a time when there was a concern about inflation," Mr Lew said. "The political reality was you couldn't get Democrats and Republicans to vote for something without that. If you asked me at the time was the risk of the economy not recovering great enough to take that on, I would have said you can't afford not to come out of COVID strong. "So I didn't think it was a great decision, but I don't think there was an alternative other than doing nothing, and we've seen from experience that the US recovered stronger and better than other countries from COVID, and the inflation is running its way through the system." Need for compromise Giving insights on how to balance the budget, he spoke about the need for political compromise. "I've always been able to convince most of the wisdom and the benefit of the compromise. And I work for presidents who were able and willing to make that case. "As in everything else in life, relationships matter deeply. Having a counterpart that you know and that you've worked with in the past and knows that they can trust you and you can trust them gives you the freedom to explore ideas that might actually work, but if they were prematurely made public, would be potentially very painful to either or both sides. So you have to have a space that you can talk about middle grounds in that isn't totally off limits or poisoned." Ruefully, he added, "there's no bipartisan conversations going on". An economy 'doing ok' Despite being down beat about the Trump administration's economic policies he acknowledged that "the US economy is actually doing ok", and was reassured that despite a 10% fall in the dollar so far this year, which he puts down to "policy chaos in the US", the bond market appeared calm to him - for now at least. "The economy is not yet in a place where it's in distress." But, "I think we have to be careful. Right now, I think we're in a place where there's no alternative to the dollar, which is why you're not seeing more departure from the dollar", he added. "The renminbi is not in a place where it's fully convertible and market-controlled. There's not enough high-rated European debt to meaningfully replace the dollar. "Japan mostly is a domestic lending and borrowing market. So I have always been of the view that the fact that it's not there now does not mean we should take for granted that the US dominance will be perpetual."
