Immigration news: Judge blocks order barring asylum access at border, gives President Trump’s administration 2 weeks to appeal

Washington – A federal judge said on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s order to suspend access to asylum on the southern border was illegal, as they suspected one of the main pillars of the president’s plan to take strict measures against immigration on the southern border. But he put the ruling on waiting for two weeks to give the government time to appeal.

In an order on January 20, Trump announced that the situation on the southern border constitutes an invasion of America and that it is “commenting on the material entry” of the migrants and their ability to search for asylum until it decides.

ABC7 Chicago now flows 24/7. Click here to watch

The American boycott judge, Randolph Moss, said Washington that his command prohibits Trump’s policy will be valid on July 16, giving the Trump administration time to appeal.

Moss wrote that the constitution nor the migration law is not granted a “outward regime, outside the organization to restore or remove individuals from the United States, without the opportunity to apply for other humanitarian protection” or other humanitarian protection.

The Ministry of Internal Security did not immediately respond to a request, but it is likely to be the appeal. The president and his assistants have repeatedly attacked the rulings of the court that undermines his policies as a judicial transgression.

Moss, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, admitted that the government is facing “tremendous challenges” on the southern border and “tremendous accumulation” of asylum calls. But he returned several times in his 128 -page rule to his opinion that the president is not entitled to prohibit asylum.

Lee Gilrrent, who argued the case to the American Civil Liberties Union, called on the referee as a major victory.

“The decision means that there will be protection for those who flee a terrible danger and that the president cannot ignore the laws approved by Congress simply by claiming that asylum seekers participate in invasion,” he said.

The ruling comes after the illegal border crossings decrease. The White House said on Wednesday that the border patrol arrested 6,070 in June, a decrease of 30 % of May to determine the pace of the lowest annual clip since 1966. On June 28, the border patrol arrested only 137 arrests, in the sharp contrast with late 2023, when the arrests reached 10,000 in the most crowded days.

The arrests decreased sharply when Mexican officials increased enforcement within their borders in December 2023 and again when the then President Joe Biden presented strong restrictions in June 2024. They fell more after Trump became president in January, when they deployed thousands of forces to the border in national emergency situations.

Trump and his allies say the asylum system has been abused. They argue that it attracts people who know that it will take years of deciding their claims in the accumulated immigration courts in the country, during which they can work and live in America.

But supporters argue that the right to search for asylum is guaranteed in American law and international obligations – even for those who cross the border illegally. They say asylum is a vital protection of people who flee from persecution – a protection that Congress guarantees even that the president does not have the power to ignore.

People looking for asylum should be proven for fear of persecution on somewhat narrow foundations of race, religion, nationality, or belonging to a specific social or political group.

In the executive order, Trump argued that the Immigration and Nationality Law gives presidents the authority to suspend the entry of any group they find “harmful to the interests of the United States.”

The groups working with immigrants-the Arizona-based Florence and Da`wah Migrant Center in Las in Texas filed the lawsuit against the government, on the pretext that the president was wrong in equality of migrants coming to the southern border with an invasion.

They said that Trump’s declaration was like a unilateral use of the president “… the immigration laws he enacted to protect people who face persecution or torture if removed from the United States.”

But the government argued that, given that both foreign policy and migration enforcement fall under the government’s executive branch, it was completely under the authority of the president to declare invasion.

The government wrote in one of the arguments: “The intention that the United States is facing an invasion is an irreplaceable political issue.”

Spagat mentioned from San Diego.