Appeals court sounds skeptical of Trump's asylum ban

Source: Roll Call

Posted November 3, 2025 at 3:34pm


A federal appeals court in Washington sounded skeptical Monday of President Donald Trump’s proclamation effectively ending asylum in the United States, during oral arguments over a lower court ruling that found the president exceeded his authority under an immigration law. A three-judge panel on the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was weighing a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups challenging the proclamation Trump issued shortly after taking office in January.

Two of the judges asked questions about requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act that the United States allow asylum-seekers to make requests to stay in the United States. Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, said certain provisions under immigration law work in concert and a president can’t override one to execute another.

“How do we reconcile the proclamation’s ban on asylum with the rest of the INA?” Childs said. “I’m thinking, particularly, you know, for the example, there’s certain provisions that mandate a credible fear interview, and they also established judicial review for those asylum decisions.” Childs told Drew Ensign, deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation of the Civil Division, that the government’s entire argument seems “disconnected from the text of the INA.”

Lee Gelernt, deputy director at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, picked up on that point during his argument for the challengers. “I think that’s the whole case here, really,” Gelernt said. “It’s that this is an internally coherent statute which Congress has put together the pieces. And what’s ultimately happening here is that the administration doesn’t like the way Congress has put together the pieces. But Congress has put together the pieces.”

Read more: https://rollcall.com/2025/11/03/appeals-court-sounds-skeptical-of-trumps-asylum-ban/