A federal appeals court has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration's immigration agenda, ruling on Friday that President Donald Trump's sweeping ban on asylum applications at the US-Mexico border is unlawful. A three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the federal appellate court based in Washington, DC — found that existing immigration law gives people the right to apply for asylum at the border, a right the president cannot unilaterally remove.

Trump issued the asylum ban on January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, suspending what he described as the "physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion" across the southern border. The proclamation was swiftly challenged in court, and Friday's ruling upholds an earlier decision by a lower court. The three-judge panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — the foundational federal law governing immigration — does not authorise the president to remove asylum seekers under "procedures of his own making," nor to suspend their right to apply for protection or strip them of safeguards against deportation to countries where they face persecution or torture. "Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts," the panel wrote.

The majority opinion was written by Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee. Judge Justin Walker, nominated by Trump, wrote a partial dissent, arguing that the administration can issue broad denials of asylum applications — though he agreed with the majority that migrants cannot be deported to countries where they face persecution, and that mandatory procedural protections must remain in place. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, also sat on the panel. The ACLU, which brought the legal challenge, welcomed the ruling, with attorney Lee Gelernt calling it "essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing."

Under US and international law, asylum can be granted to individuals facing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Nearly 945,000 people filed for asylum in the United States in 2023 alone, according to the Department of Homeland Security, with many applicants fleeing gang violence and political repression in Central and South America. Unauthorised border crossings reached record levels under Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who had himself imposed some asylum restrictions.

The ruling's immediate practical impact remains uncertain, and the White House has already signalled it will appeal. The administration is expected to first seek a rehearing before the full appellate court, and ultimately bring the case to the Supreme Court. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed the decision as politically motivated, accusing judges of "acting against this president for political purposes" rather than interpreting the law. The case is the latest in a long series of legal battles over Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown, which was a central promise of his 2024 re-election campaign.