President Trump’s bold move to lock down the southern border just hit a judicial speed bump, according to CBS News.
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has clipped the wings of a Trump proclamation aimed at shutting down the asylum system for unauthorized migrants crossing into the U.S., though the ruling offers a mixed bag of restrictions and allowances.
Back in January, fresh off his return to the White House, President Trump proclaimed to close the asylum system at the southern border, citing what he called an overwhelming influx of migrants.
His administration leaned on this order to swiftly expel those entering without authorization, effectively blocking their chance to seek asylum. It’s a tough stance, and one many hardworking Americans might see as a necessary guardrail for national security.
On Friday, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stepped in, ruling that the administration can’t just toss aside laws that protect migrants from being deported to places where they’d face persecution or torture. While the decision stings for supporters of strict border control, it’s not a total loss—more on that in a moment.
This ruling builds on a July decision by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, who found Trump’s proclamation clashed with laws requiring the government to at least hear out migrants’ pleas for humanitarian protection.
Moss wanted the ban scrapped entirely for a specific group of migrants, but the appeals court narrowed that relief. It’s almost as if the judiciary can’t decide whether to fully slam the brakes or just tap them lightly.
Specifically, the D.C. Circuit limited the relief to asylum-seekers already on U.S. soil while the proclamation remains active.
For those still trying to cross, the administration can continue using the order to deny access to the asylum system. It’s a partial win for Trump’s team, keeping some teeth in the policy while softening the bite for those already here.
The panel made it crystal clear that while U.S. law doesn’t force the government to grant asylum, it does mandate protections like “withholding of removal” and safeguards under the United Nations Convention Against Torture if certain strict criteria are met. Trump’s proclamation can’t override those, no matter how urgent the border situation feels. That’s a nod to legal obligations, even if it frustrates those who want a tighter grip on immigration.
The judges—two appointed by former President Obama and one by Trump—didn’t see eye to eye on everything, but all agreed that ignoring laws around mandatory protections was a step too far.
They’ve set expedited proceedings to hash out the case’s merits, with briefs due by September 26. It’s a fast track to more courtroom drama, and you can bet both sides are gearing up for a fight.
This legal showdown stems from a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups challenging the administration’s border policies.
While their cause might resonate with progressive ideals, one has to wonder if they’ve considered the strain that unchecked crossings place on border communities. Compassion is noble, but so is order.
Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin didn’t mince words, stating, “The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level.”
She slammed a “rogue district judge” for undermining safety and ignoring higher court guidance on nationwide injunctions. Her frustration echoes the sentiment of many who feel activist courts overreach into policy territory.
Let’s unpack that quote—while the passion for border security is undeniable, the “rogue judge” jab might overstate the case.
Judicial oversight exists for a reason, even if it sometimes feels like a thorn in the side of executive action. The real question is whether safety and legal protections can coexist without one sidelining the other.
Trump administration officials point to hard numbers as proof their policies work, noting Border Patrol recorded just 4,600 unauthorized crossings in July—the lowest monthly total since public records started in 2000.
They also credit additional troop deployments to the border for this historic drop, reminiscent of levels not seen since the 1960s. That’s a stat line conservatives can cheer, showing tangible results from a get-tough approach.