By

Melissa Quinn,
Melissa Quinn Senior Reporter, Politics

Melissa Quinn is a senior reporter for CBSNews.com, where she covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

Read Full Bio

Melissa Quinn,
Jacob Rosen

Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter

Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

Read Full Bio

Jacob Rosen

Updated on: April 24, 2026 / 2:24 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Trump’s directive suspending access to asylum and other legal protections for migrants unlawfully crossing the southern border.

A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that federal immigration law does not allow the president to deport migrants under new summary removal proceedings implemented by the Trump administration or to suspend their right to apply for asylum.

Judge J. Michelle Childs authored the decision for the two-judge majority. She was joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Judge Justin Walker concurred in part but dissented from the court’s conclusion on the legality of Mr. Trump’s directive to effectively close the asylum system at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We conclude that the [Immigration and Nationality Act’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,” Childs, a Biden appointee, wrote for the majority.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections,” she added.

Walker, appointed by Mr. Trump in his first term, agreed with his colleagues’ finding that the executive branch cannot strip migrants of access to procedures that protect them from being removed to countries where they would likely be persecuted or tortured. But he said it is within the president’s lawful discretion to deny all asylum applications.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU, which challenged the policy, said in a statement that the decision “will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration’s horrific asylum ban.”

The Trump administration can ask the full D.C. Circuit to review the decision or appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case is one of many aspects of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda that has faced legal challenges. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised to execute mass deportations if elected and has implemented policies in his second term in pursuit of that aim.

On Mr. Trump’s first day back in office, he directed his administration to suspend the asylum process for millions of people seeking to come to the U.S. due to potential torture or persecution in their native countries.

In his executive order, Mr. Trump said that there was an “invasion” into the U.S. and as a result, he was “suspending the physical entry” of undocumented migrants into the country until he determined “that the invasion has concluded.”

On the heels of that directive, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance informing immigration authorities at the southern border that individuals who cross between ports of entry are “not permitted to apply for asylum.” The department also declared that people subject to Mr. Trump’s executive order could be summarily removed under one of two new processes, “direct repatriation” or “expedited removal,” without being allowed to request asylum.

Under the guidance, asylum officers were told not to ask specific questions about whether a migrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture.

The case before the D.C. Circuit arose in February 2025, when a group of immigrant rights’ groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to block the asylum pathway for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

They argued that the president had exceeded his authority through the new summary removal procedures and that his proclamation and the Homeland Security Department’s guidance violated the Immigration Nationality Act.

In July, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss certified as a class all migrants subject to Mr. Trump’s directive who are or will be in the U.S. He also sided with the plaintiffs and asylum seekers, finding that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act or Constitution give Mr. Trump the “sweeping authority asserted” in the proclamation and that an “appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”

The Justice Department appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which agreed to narrow portions of the lower court’s decision while proceedings before the appeals court continued. That panel did, however, limit the president’s efforts to close the asylum system at the southern border.

In its decision Friday, the D.C. Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

“The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making. Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs’ access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Convention Against Torture claims,” Childs wrote.

The Trump administration had argued that immigration law authorizes the president to restrict migrants subject to his directive from invoking the right to apply for asylum, but the judges in the majority disagreed.

“To the contrary, barring foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States from applying for asylum and, if they make the statutory showing that they are eligible, from being considered to receive it cannot be squared with the statute,” Childs said.

She said that numerous sources, including from the courts and the executive branch, point to the conclusion that Congress enacted the asylum statute, with narrow exceptions, to grant all foreign nationals in the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and have their applications adjudicated.

“If the Government wishes to modify this carefully structured and intricate system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the INA: Congress,” Childs wrote.

Camilo Montoya-Galvez contributed to this report.