A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against one of President Donald Trump’s first-day-in-office actions aimed at stemming the amount of immigrants claiming asylum at the southern border.
In a 2–1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Trump administration overstepped its authority and bypassed procedures of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The president’s executive order, called “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” and guidance along with it are “unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections,” Circuit Court Judge Julianna Childs wrote.
In the decision, the judges reaffirmed a lower court’s decision that had also ruled against Trump’s directive.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted in 1952, created comprehensive procedures on immigration, including entry and removal procedures for immigrants and protections for individuals who may face persecution or torture if deported.
Trump signed his order on Jan. 20, 2025, calling the asylum system broken while blaming Democrats for straining states and spending billions on medical care and other services for immigrants.
The president also cited public health concerns, as individuals were allowed into the country without their past medical history.
“Over the last 4 years, at least 8 million illegal aliens were encountered along the southern border of the United States, and countless millions more evaded detection and illegally entered the United States,” the order reads. “An invasion is ongoing at the southern border.”
Trump’s order suspended asylum access to any immigrant who crossed the border outside of a designated port of entry. It also suspended anyone crossing at a designated port of entry without sufficient documentation.
Furthermore, the president’s guidance subjected immigrants who did enter the United States, despite the entry ban, to summary removal.
In the D.C. circuit’s decision Friday, it clarified they were not ruling on the directive’s authority to suspend entry. Rather, this case was addressing the executive branch’s power to “order removals using new procedures that supplant the INA’s existing removal procedures.”
Shortly after Trump signed his order, 13 individuals—under pseudonyms—and three nonprofit organizations, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, filed suit.
They claimed the directive violated the INA. The D.C. circuit agreed Friday that its guidance exceeded what was allowed under the legislation and circumvented rights for asylum seekers and other protections against removal.
“The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making,” the court said. “Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.