Trump’s Order Targeting Asylum Protections Found Unlawful

President Donald Trump overstepped his legal and constitutional authority and must cease targeting US-based asylum seekers with deportation, a district court ruled Wednesday, giving a legal victory to immigrant rights groups.

Portions of Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and the US Constitution’s separation of powers, Judge Randolph D. Moss said in an opinion. The groups’ motion for summary judgment was partially granted in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

The US Constitution can’t be “read to grant the President or his delegees authority to adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated,” Moss said.

The groups and eight asylum seekers sued in February, arguing that Trump’s executive order unlawfully strips federal laws of their protections for asylum seekers. They said the president’s move violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Moss vacated the executive order to the extent it authorizes “extra-statutory and extra-regulatory” removals or repatriations for people covered by asylum protections or precludes them from applying for asylum. The judge also vacated the order’s provisions that depart from the Justice Department’s Convention Against Torture.

Trump agreed not to deport the eight plaintiffs pursuant to the executive order after they moved for emergency relief. Moss said that while the executive order’s terms were sweeping and would suspend multiple immigration laws, the emergency request was moot in light of the administration’s promise to not deport the plaintiffs.

The groups and asylum seekers argued that neither the constitution nor the US Congress authorizes Trump to abrogate the legal protections laid out in federal law for asylum seekers, they said in their support brief. They also hit back at the administration’s contentions that they lack standing to sue or have failed to state a claim, arguing they have valid causes of action.

The administration argued in its support brief for summary judgment that its executive order is both consistent with the Constitution and federal law. The plaintiffs argued that they needed nationwide relief.

Moss denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling the matter was moot in light of his ruling on the suit’s merits.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, Jenner & Block LLP, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the District of Columbia, ACLU Foundation of Texas, and Texas Civil Rights Project represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Serv. v. Noem, D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-00306, 7/2/25.