Migrants from Mexico and Guatemala are apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers after crossing a section of border wall into the U.S. on Jan. 4, 2025 in Ruby, Arizona. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — A panel of District of Columbia Court of Appeals judges Monday heard oral arguments from the Trump administration defending the president’s move to end asylum claims at the southern border through an executive order.
Civil rights and immigration advocacy groups sought to make permanent a District of Columbia District Court’s July injunction that found the Trump administration could not block asylum seekers from making asylum claims — a form of protection extended to those fearing persecution.
A separate appeals panel lifted the lower court’s order, permitting the administration to block asylum seekers while the merits of the case were argued.
The Trump administration cited the 212(f) proclamation and claimed that because there is an “invasion” at the southern border, asylum protections – which were created by Congress – could be denied. The 212(f) proclamation gives the president the authority to suspend entry of migrants under certain circumstances.
Encounters with migrants at the southern border have remained the lowest in years.
Immigration crackdown
The executive order from January fell in line with the president’s immigration crackdown, as he aims to limit immigration in the interior of the country with mass deportations and cease migration to the United States through curbing access to asylum and refugee resettlement.
During Monday’s oral arguments, Department of Justice attorneys on behalf of the Trump administration argued that Trump has the authority to decide who is admissible into the country, regardless if it’s an asylum claim.
The suit was brought on behalf of three organizations by the American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of the District of Columbia and ACLU of Texas.
Those three organizations are the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, or RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. They provide legal services to people seeking asylum and argued that they are unable to do so under Trump’s proclamation.
The judges on the panel included Cornelia T.L. Pillard, Justin R. Walker and J. Michelle Childs.
Former President Barack Obama nominated Pillard and former President Joe Biden nominated Childs. President Donald Trump nominated Walker during his first term.
Trump executive powers
Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, DOJ attorney Drew Ensign said the president’s proclamation was an extension of his executive branch powers.
Ensign argued that the Trump administration views asylum as discretionary, and that the president can “take the steps necessary to make an entry bar effective, including defining consequences for violating it.”
Ensign argued that because the appeals court this summer allowed for the district court’s order to be paused, it means the government is likely to prevail on its argument.
Lee Gelernt of the ACLU argued that the proclamation’s use of 212(f) cannot override asylum law in the Immigration Nationality Act that Congress passed.
“This is an internally coherent statute which Congress has put together the pieces,” Gelernt said of the INA. “And what’s ultimately happening here is that the administration doesn’t like the way Congress has put together the pieces.”
He added that Congress was specific in describing a migrant who would not be allowed to qualify for asylum, such as someone who has ties to terrorism.
“But 212(f) itself cannot override asylum,” Gelernt said.
Ensign also asked the panel of judges, if they decide to allow the lower court’s injunction to go into effect, to give the Trump administration at least two weeks to implement the new policy at the southern border.
Discover more from USNewsRank
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.