Border asylum denial attempt by Trump thwarted by federal court
In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss has blocked President Donald Trump's asylum ban at the US-Mexico border. The judge's decision, based on statutory and constitutional limits to presidential authority, determines that President Trump exceeded his legal authority by attempting to unilaterally suspend the ability of migrants at the southern border to seek asylum.
The key legal reasoning behind the ruling includes the lack of statutory authority for the President's sweeping authority asserted in Trump's executive proclamation. Judge Moss stated, "Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegates the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance. An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
The ruling also emphasises the inherent constitutional limits, stating that allowing the President to supplant federal statutes by executive proclamation would render much of the Immigration and Nationality Act "simply optional," undermining the rule of law and the role of Congress in immigration matters.
Judge Moss concluded that this case was among the rare instances where injunctive relief was necessary to prevent harm to legal rights established by Congress. The judge also recognised the executive branch faces serious challenges at the border, but these do not override congressional mandates.
Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated that the decision means protection for those fleeing horrific danger and that the president cannot ignore laws passed by Congress simply by claiming that asylum-seekers are engaged in an invasion.
The ACLU brought the challenge to Trump's asylum ban in February, representing three advocacy groups and migrants denied access to asylum. The ruling could potentially allow asylum for those fleeing horrific danger, despite the president's claims that the asylum system has been abused.
President Trump signed a proclamation on the day of his inauguration, suspending the physical entry of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides the situation is over. The number of illegal border crossings has dropped significantly, with 6,070 arrests in June, a 30% decrease from May and the lowest annual pace since 1966.
However, the ruling does not completely halt the asylum ban, but it does limit its scope. The judge's ruling is a setback for President Trump, who had promised a sweeping immigration crackdown during his campaign. There was no immediate reaction from the White House, the Justice Department, or the Department of Homeland Security. The ruling stayed for two weeks to give the government time to appeal, but it is unclear if they will do so.
US-bound migrants stranded in Mexico City face potential eviction as a result of the ruling. The situation remains fluid, and further developments are expected in the coming weeks.
- The ruling on President Trump's asylum ban at the US-Mexico border, issued by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, highlights the lack of statutory authority for the President's asserted sweeping authority, which contravenes the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution.
- The decision also sheds light on the inherent constitutional limits, as allowing the President to supplant federal statutes by executive proclamation could potentially render much of the Immigration and Nationality Act optional, thus undermining the rule of law and the role of Congress in immigration matters.
- In response to the ruling, Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated that the decision protects those fleeing horrific danger and ensures that the president cannot ignore laws passed by Congress simply by claiming that asylum-seekers are engaged in an invasion.
- As the ruling could potentially allow asylum for those fleeing danger, the media covering general news, policy-and-legislation, politics, and international affairs will closely follow developments in the coming weeks, particularly regarding any appeals from the government and the potential eviction of US-bound migrants stranded in Mexico City.
