The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Friday that the Trump administration exceeded its authority by creating deportation procedures that bypassed protections established by Congress.
The three-judge panel said President Donald Trump has broad authority to restrict asylum claims at the border, but migrants already inside the U.S. are entitled to greater protections under federal immigration law.
The case centered on an executive order Trump signed on Inauguration Day, calling for faster deportations.
After that order, the Department of Homeland Security issued implementation guidelines creating two procedures described as “expedited” deportation and “direct repatriation.”
According to the report, both systems sharply reduced the opportunity for illegal immigrants to request asylum or other humanitarian protections before removal.
Judge Michelle Childs wrote for the majority that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not allow the president to remove plaintiffs through summary procedures “of his own making.”
She further wrote that the executive branch cannot suspend a migrant’s right to apply for asylum, deny access to withholding of removal under the law, or curtail mandatory procedures tied to claims under the Convention Against Torture.
The ruling emphasized that those protections are distinct legal safeguards passed by Congress.
Asylum can apply to individuals fearing persecution.
Withholding of removal can bar deportation to a country where danger exists.
Convention Against Torture protections can prevent return to nations where torture is likely.
The court said those protections cannot be removed through executive action alone.
The ruling largely affirmed an earlier lower court decision, as well as a prior appellate order that had already limited enforcement of the Trump administration’s policy while the lawsuit moved forward.
The Trump administration argued that the president’s authority to remove people already in the country is comparable to his authority to block people at the border.
The court rejected that argument.
Judge Childs wrote that while asylum grants are discretionary, the law does not permit blanket denial of asylum claims without reviewing what a person may face if removed, per the Conservative Brief.
Judge Justin Walker issued a partial dissent.
Walker agreed that a president cannot erase all protections that stop removals to persecution.
However, he said Trump had a stronger legal footing when restricting asylum claims and criticized the majority for extending the ruling through class-action status to what he said could include millions of plaintiffs.
The decision is a significant setback for Trump’s deportation agenda.
Unless overturned on appeal, the administration cannot use the challenged procedures in their current form.
The ruling also reinforces that immigration enforcement powers remain subject to limits written by Congress, even during aggressive deportation pushes.
