Court Ruling Could Spell Trouble For Trump’s Border Crackdown

The southern border could soon reopen to illegal immigrants.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s “invasion” declaration at the US-Mexico border was illegal, paving the way for the resumption of asylum processing, The Washington Post reported.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision, which would delay a possible reopening of the floodgates.

On the first day of his second term, Trump issued a proclamation effectively shutting down asylum at the southern U.S. border, stating it would remain in place “until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.”

The policy change led to months of historically low levels of illegal border crossings. Border Patrol has apprehended fewer than 9,000 illegal migrants each month at the southern border since Trump took office, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. Monthly migrant encounters under Trump have fallen below levels seen on some single days during the Biden administration.

During Biden’s presidency, millions of migrants crossed the border illegally and were often afforded years to remain in the country due to the massive court backlog the crisis created. The Trump administration has sought to end the incentives by turning off the asylum valve.

Immigrant rights organizations sued over Trump’s policy, arguing that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by denying migrants fleeing persecution the ability to claim asylum at the border, according to The Washington Post.

“The court’s opinion does not mean there are now open borders, but only that the United States will no longer be one of the few countries in the world who after World War II does not provide a hearing for those fleeing persecution,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who argued the case.

“The court properly made clear that the president cannot simply waive away the laws enacted by Congress,” Gelernt said.

In its opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the law does not grant Trump the broad authority asserted in the proclamation.

“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,” the court wrote.

The decision was issued by a three-judge panel, with one judge partially concurring and dissenting.