A coalition of immigration advocacy groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration’s sweeping asylum ban, claiming the policy violates U.S. immigration laws and puts vulnerable asylum seekers in grave danger.
The lawsuit, filed in a Washington federal court, argues that the administration’s restrictions on asylum access at the southern border represent illegal presidential overreach and disregard protections established by Congress for those fleeing war, persecution, and torture.
What Is the Asylum Ban?
As part of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, the administration declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an “invasion of America”, suspending the ability of migrants to request asylum.
The order relies on a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which Trump argues gives presidents the power to suspend the entry of groups deemed “detrimental” to U.S. interests.
In addition to suspending asylum claims, Trump ended a system implemented by former President Joe Biden that allowed 1,450 migrants per day to schedule asylum appointments at official border crossings.
Advocates Argue the Ban Is Unlawful
The advocacy groups, including Arizona-based Florence Project, El Paso’s Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and Texas-based RAICES, argue that U.S. law explicitly protects the right to request asylum.
The lawsuit states that the executive order illegally expels migrants — including families and single adults — without giving them the chance to apply for asylum or other legal protections.
“The government is doing just what Congress by statute decreed that the United States must not do,” the groups said in the complaint. “It is returning asylum seekers… to countries where they face persecution or torture.”
Lee Gelernt, lead attorney for the ACLU, said the asylum ban is a “sham claim” based on a false narrative of invasion.
“No President, including President Trump during his first term, has ever claimed the power to unilaterally eliminate asylum,” Gelernt said. “Congress has taken pains over four-plus decades to create a safe haven for those fleeing danger.”
The Impact of the Ban
The asylum ban has left many migrants, including those fleeing war, violence, and political oppression, in legal limbo or at risk of being sent back to dangerous situations.
Without access to the asylum process, migrants are often expelled within hours of arrival at the southern border. The groups also claim that migrants are frequently denied the chance to make phone calls or consult with legal representatives before being deported.
Immigration courts, which already face a backlog of 3.7 million cases, would have further delays if asylum seekers were not properly processed, legal experts warn.
White House Defends the Ban
A White House spokesperson, Kush Desai, defended Trump’s executive order, stating that it is part of the president’s broader mandate to secure the border and prioritize American interests.
“President Trump was given a resounding mandate to end the disregard and abuse of our immigration laws and secure our borders,” Desai said. “The Trump administration will continue to put Americans and America First.”
The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the ongoing litigation but emphasized the administration’s commitment to enforcing immigration laws.
What the Lawsuit Argues
The lawsuit challenges the legality of the executive order, stating that:
- Asylum access is protected by federal law: The U.S. government cannot deny migrants the right to seek asylum, as enshrined in the Immigration and Nationality Act and international agreements.
- The “invasion” claim is unfounded: The number of migrants entering the U.S. between official ports of entry has declined to its lowest levels since August 2020, contradicting the administration’s justification for the ban.
- Presidential overreach: Trump’s order represents an “extreme example of presidential overreach” and undermines the checks and balances established by Congress.
“The proclamation makes the sham claim of an invasion to justify wiping away all means of seeking asylum,” the complaint states.
Critics of Asylum Access
Critics argue that relatively few asylum seekers qualify for protection, and the overburdened immigration courts take years to process claims. To qualify for asylum, migrants must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution based on specific grounds such as race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.
The Trump administration argues that many migrants abuse the asylum system by making false claims or using it as a delay tactic to remain in the U.S.
The lawsuit against the asylum ban sets the stage for a major legal battle over presidential authority and immigration policy. Advocates hope that federal courts will uphold protections for asylum seekers, while the Trump administration is expected to vigorously defend its actions.
As the case moves forward, it could have significant implications for the future of U.S. asylum policies and the treatment of migrants at the southern border.