|
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Friday (local time) reaffirmed a lower court ruling that limits President Donald Trump's asylum ban at the US-Mexico border, effectively blocking a key order issued by Trump on his first day in office, The Hill reported.
Trump had sought to end asylum access for all migrants except those who entered the US at official ports of entry, claiming the change was necessary to stop what he described as an "invasion" at the southern border. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in February on behalf of nonprofit organizations. In July, US District Judge Randolph Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled against the Trump-era ban, saying it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), The Hill reported. Moss concluded that the former president overstepped his authority by severely restricting asylum for migrants fleeing danger and persecution. While the DC Circuit panel--comprising Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard, and Gregory G. Katsas--initially paused Moss's decision, it has now lifted the stay and allowed parts of the district court's ruling to take effect. However, the panel also narrowed the scope of Moss's decision, allowing the government to continue using elements of Trump's proclamation to bar certain migrants from accessing the asylum system, The Hill noted. Reacting to the decision, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CBS News, "The President secured the border in record time at an unprecedented level by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. A rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions." "The Trump Administration is committed to restoring integrity to our immigration system and to our justice system," McLaughlin added. The Hill reported that the case remains a flashpoint in the ongoing legal and political debate over presidential authority on immigration and the future of US asylum policy. (ANI)
|
