On April 24, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Trump's January 20, 2025 executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border is illegal. The opinion, written by Judge J. Michelle Childs (an Obama-Biden nominee) and joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard (an Obama nominee), found that immigration statute does not give the president authority to override the asylum system by unilateral declaration.
On his first day in office, Trump declared the situation at the southern border an “invasion of America” and said he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he unilaterally decided the condition had ended. The panel held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not authorize a president to “remove the plaintiffs under procedures of his own making,” to suspend their right to apply for asylum, or to curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.
Judge Childs: “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 to summarily remove foreign individuals.” And: “We conclude that the INA's text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts.”
Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a partial dissent — but agreed with the majority on the core legal question: the administration cannot deport migrants to countries where they would be persecuted, and it cannot strip them of mandatory procedures that protect against removal. Walker's disagreement was narrower, arguing only that the administration can issue broad denials of asylum applications.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, called the ruling “unsurprising,” blamed “politically-motivated judges” (including a Trump nominee), and said they are “not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said DOJ would seek further review.
Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, who argued the case: the appellate ruling is “essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration's unlawful and inhumane executive order.” Nicolas Palazzo of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center: “Today's DC Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the President cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States.”
The ruling does not formally take effect until the court considers any motion to reconsider. The administration is expected to seek Supreme Court review.