A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its authority in attempting to implement deportation rules designed to accelerate removals, finding that the changes bypassed protections established by Congress.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Friday that while President Donald Trump has broad authority to limit asylum claims at the border, individuals already inside the United States are entitled to greater procedural protections.
In its decision, the three-judge panel concluded that the administration’s policies violated provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Washington Times reported.
“The INA does not allow the president to remove plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making,” wrote Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee. “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.”
Protections such as asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture are distinct legal mechanisms designed to prevent individuals from being returned to countries where they may face persecution or government-sanctioned violence.
Friday’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit largely affirms a lower court decision, as well as an earlier appellate ruling that had limited the administration’s ability to implement the policies while the case proceeded, the Times added.
Trump signed an order on Inauguration Day calling for expedited deportations. The Department of Homeland Security then wrote guidelines to implement the order. They called for either an “expedited” deportation or “direct repatriation.” Both limited the chance for illegal immigrants to demand they receive asylum.
The Trump administration argued that the president’s authority to remove individuals from the country is comparable to his authority to restrict entry at the border.
However, the appeals panel said the administration’s approach effectively created new deportation procedures and broadly denied individuals the opportunity to apply for asylum, rather than assessing claims on a case-by-case basis.
“We do not question that asylum decisions are ultimately discretionary. But the INA does not support categorical, ex ante denial of asylum with no consideration of what the would-be applicant may face if removed,” Judge Childs wrote.
The ruling is confusing, to say the least, given that during his term, President Biden used broad categorical leniency to let tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country.
U.S. District Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, issued a partial dissent from the ruling. Walker said he agreed that a president cannot eliminate all protections that prevent migrants from being returned to countries where they could face persecution, noting that individuals must still have the opportunity to seek withholding of removal.
However, he said President Donald Trump had stronger legal grounds in restricting asylum claims. Walker also criticized the majority for applying its decision broadly, arguing it extended to “potentially millions of plaintiffs” through the case’s class-action designation.
Democrat-appointed judges have done all they could to thwart Trump’s deportation agenda. Just last month, a federal judge appointed by Biden indicated he might consider jailing officials from ICE and the Department of Justice during a heated exchange in the courtroom with U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen, as reported by local affiliate Fox 9.
The news outlet reported that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan in Minnesota summoned Rosen and several officials from ICE and the DOJ to court for an unusual contempt hearing regarding alleged “unlawful conduct” by federal officials. The hearing is a result of the Trump administration’s “Operation Metro Surge,” which targeted illegal immigration and fraud.
During the proceedings, Bryan indicated that he had “not ruled out the possibility of imprisonment” for the federal officials involved in this case.