Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump's Asylum Ban at U.S.-Mexico Border

In a 128-page takedown, Judge Randolph Moss rules Trump’s border shutdown unlawful, reaffirming that presidents can’t rewrite immigration law by fiat.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Wednesday struck down the Trump administration’s proclamation suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border, declaring the policy unlawful and a violation of federal immigration statutes.

In his 128-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss wrote, “The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.”

The ruling comes nearly six months after President Donald Trump issued the proclamation on January 20, his first day back in office. It effectively shut down all avenues for migrants to seek asylum at the southern border, prompting immediate legal challenges from advocacy groups.

“This is a flat-out ban on all asylum,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This is way beyond anything that even President Trump has tried in the past.”

The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), the Texas Civil Rights Project, and other advocacy organizations on behalf of groups providing legal services to asylum seekers, including RAICES and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.

Gelernt, who argued the case, called the 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.”

The administration invoked Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act — typically used for narrow travel bans — to justify the asylum suspension, citing what officials described as an “invasion” at the border. Judge Moss rejected that reasoning, echoing critics who called the proclamation unprecedented and xenophobic.

“The court rejected the administration’s efforts to use the ‘212(f)’ proclamation, which falsely cited an ‘invasion’ as justification to deny asylum protections expressly granted by Congress,” the ACLU said in a statement.

“This attempt to completely shut down the border is an attack on the fundamental and longstanding right to seek safety in the U.S. from violence and persecution,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director for the ACLU of Texas.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller blasted the ruling, calling it the work of “a marxist judge” and claiming the decision “declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global ‘class’ entitled to admission into the United States.”

Advocates celebrated the ruling as a reaffirmation of legal norms and a rebuke to what they described as cruel and unlawful executive overreach.

“We are grateful that the federal courts continue to agree with us that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental protection provided by Congress and ingrained in U.S. law for decades,” said Keren Zwick, litigation director at the National Immigrant Justice Center.

“This decision is a win for human dignity and the rule of law,” added Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project. “The court’s blocking of the Trump administration’s executive action underscores the inhumane and unlawful nature of this policy.”

Legal experts from the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies echoed that sentiment, calling the policy “racist” and “baseless.” “Under our laws, any person seeking safety at our southern border has a legal right to apply for asylum,” said Edith Sangüeza, senior staff attorney at CGRS.

Jennifer Babaie of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center emphasized the real-life impact: “Every day that the United States fails to uphold its asylum process puts women, children, and families fleeing violence at risk of exploitation and serious harm.”

“Federal law unequivocally guarantees the right of refugees to seek asylum and the right not to be returned to face torture,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the ACLU of the District of Columbia. “President Trump’s attempt to eliminate these life-or-death rights with the swipe of a pen... had no legal basis, as the court today made clear.”

Javier Hidalgo, legal director at RAICES, framed the decision as part of a broader civic struggle: “We are a nation of laws. The Trump administration’s sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our Constitution... The judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy.”

The court’s order will take effect in two weeks. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.