Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump's Executive Order Suspending Asylum at Southern Border Violates U.S. Law

A federal appeals court on April 24, 2026 ruled that President Trump's executive order suspending the right to seek asylum at the southern border is illegal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — one of the most significant judicial limits on presidential immigration power in years. The court found that Congress, through the INA, explicitly granted individuals the right to apply for asylum regardless of how they entered the country, and that the president cannot override that statutory right through executive order or 'national emergency' and 'invasion' declarations. The panel held that the INA does not authorize the president to remove asylum applicants under 'procedures of his own making' or to suspend their statutory right to apply. The ruling ordered the border reopened to asylum seekers who had been turned back under the executive order. The Trump administration invoked the same legal theory it had used in the Alien Enemies Act cases — that a flow of migrants constitutes an 'invasion' empowering the president to take extraordinary immigration actions — but the court rejected this framing as applied to asylum rights established by statute. The administration announced it would appeal the ruling, with legal observers expecting the case to reach the Supreme Court. Al Jazeera and international outlets noted the ruling sets up one of the most consequential immigration cases in decades. At the border, CBP began processing asylum seekers who had been waiting while the executive order was in effect.