A United States federal appeals court has ruled that former President Donald Trump cannot stop migrants at the US border from applying for asylum, in a major legal decision that limits one of his key immigration policies.
The ruling was delivered on Friday by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which upheld an earlier decision by a lower court. The court said Trump went beyond his legal powers when he issued a policy that blocked migrants who crossed the US-Mexico border illegally from seeking asylum in the United States.
The case is part of a long-running legal and political battle over immigration policy in the US, especially how the country handles people entering the country without documents.
Asylum is a form of protection given to people who flee their home countries because of fear of persecution, war, or violence. Under US law, migrants who are physically present in the country have the right to apply for asylum, and their cases must be considered individually.
In its ruling, the appeals court said Congress—not the president—has the power to change immigration law. The judges stressed that the system was carefully designed and could not be altered through presidential orders alone.
“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the judges said.
They added that the asylum law was created to allow all foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States to apply for protection and have their cases properly reviewed.
“If the Government wishes to modify this carefully structured and intricate system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act: Congress,” the court said.
The ruling reinforces an earlier decision by District Judge Randolph Moss, who last year blocked Trump’s proclamation on asylum restrictions. That case was brought before the court by immigrant rights groups and asylum seekers who argued that the policy violated US immigration law.
Judge Moss had agreed with the argument, ruling that the ban on asylum requests did not comply with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is the main law governing immigration in the United States.
Immigration has been one of the most controversial issues in US politics for many years. Trump, during his time in office, made immigration control a major part of his political agenda. He repeatedly promised to reduce illegal migration and deport millions of undocumented migrants.
Since returning to the White House in January last year, the Republican president has continued to push for stricter immigration measures. His administration has increased deportations and introduced policies aimed at reducing the number of migrants crossing the southern border.
However, several of these efforts have faced legal challenges. Courts in different parts of the country have blocked or delayed some of his policies, especially those seen as limiting the rights of migrants.
Many of the court cases have focused on whether the government is respecting due process—the legal right of individuals to have their case properly heard before being deported or denied protection.
Rights groups have argued that some of the administration’s policies deny migrants fair access to asylum procedures. They say this puts vulnerable people at risk, especially those fleeing violence or persecution in their home countries.
On the other hand, supporters of stricter immigration rules argue that the US border system is under pressure and needs stronger controls to manage illegal entry and security concerns.
The latest ruling adds to a series of legal setbacks for Trump’s immigration agenda. While the court decision does not end the wider debate on immigration policy, it confirms that any major change to asylum rules must go through Congress.
This means the US legislature, not the presidency or the courts alone, will have the final say on whether asylum laws are changed in the future.
For now, the ruling ensures that migrants who arrive at the US border can continue to apply for asylum and have their cases considered under existing law, pending further legal or legislative changes.