A federal appeals court on Friday blocked an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that sought to suspend asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that federal immigration law guarantees migrants the ability to apply for protection and cannot be overridden by presidential proclamation.

The decision was issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which found that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the government to maintain established procedures for processing asylum claims and related protections. The court concluded that the president does not have the authority to suspend those statutory rights or replace them with alternative procedures.

The case stems from an executive order signed on Inauguration Day 2025, in which Trump declared the situation at the southern border an “invasion” and directed that the physical entry of foreign nationals, along with their ability to request asylum, be suspended until further notice. The administration argued the action was justified under presidential authority to restrict the entry of individuals deemed detrimental to national interests.

Writing for the court, Judge J. Michelle Childs stated that while federal law allows the president to suspend entry of certain foreign nationals, it does not grant authority to bypass mandatory legal procedures governing asylum and removal proceedings. The ruling said Congress did not intend to provide the executive branch with unilateral power to eliminate statutory protections.

“The INA’s text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the opinion stated.

The ruling does not take immediate effect, giving the administration the option to seek review from the full appeals court or escalate the case to the Supreme Court. The White House and Department of Justice indicated they intend to pursue further legal challenges.

White House officials criticized the decision, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt calling it predictable and suggesting it reflected political bias within the judiciary. Administration representatives maintained that the president acted within constitutional authority as commander in chief and expressed confidence that the policy would ultimately be upheld on appeal.

Immigration advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argued the ruling reinforces longstanding legal protections guaranteeing individuals the right to seek asylum, particularly for those fleeing persecution or violence. Plaintiffs in the case described the decision as a critical safeguard against executive overreach.

The dissenting opinion partially agreed with the majority that migrants cannot be deported to countries where they face persecution, but argued the administration retains broader discretion in rejecting asylum applications.

The ruling comes amid ongoing strain at the southern border and continued pressure on immigration systems in Mexico and the United States. Migrants from countries including Haiti, Cuba, and Venezuela remain stranded in northern Mexico, where shelters and asylum systems have struggled to absorb rising demand.