Administration Pushes Back After Judge Blocks Trump’s Asylum Ban on Mexicans

The Biden administration responded forcefully Wednesday to a federal judge’s order halting President Donald Trump’s executive edict that barred Mexican citizens who crossed the U.S. border illegally from claiming asylum. The court ruling, issued the same day, declared that part of the asylum suspension unlawful.

Stephen Miller, the White House’s deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, sharply criticized the decision. He framed it as judicial overreach, accusing the judge of trying to ignore Supreme Court limits on nationwide injunctions and instead apply policy through the courts. Miller’s statement on X (formerly Twitter) accused the judge of treating all future illegal entrants as a “protected global ‘class’” entitled to entry.

The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, a Barack Obama appointee, was stayed for two weeks to allow the government to file an appeal. In his written opinion, Moss rejected the administration’s claim of broad authority, stating that nothing in the Constitution or immigration statutes grants the executive branch the power to unilaterally rework the asylum framework.

Moss’s ruling also referenced a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the reach of nationwide injunctions. Under that precedent, lower courts generally should confine orders to only the parties before them or the geographic jurisdiction they oversee—not issue sweeping, countrywide bans.

---

What the Ban Did—and What It Tried to Do

The contested portion of Trump’s directive was part of a larger proclamation titled “Guaranteeing the States’ Protection Against Invasion.” In its text, the administration invoked notions of sovereignty and executive responsibility for national defense, rather than leaving control to Congress.

Under the new restriction, Mexican nationals who crossed the border illegally would be ineligible to apply for asylum in the U.S. This effectively shut off one of the major pathways for people lacking legal status to seek protection. The move also led to the suspension of CBP One, a scheduling app introduced during the Biden era, which had allowed migrants to schedule appointments for presenting asylum claims.

Customs and Border Protection agents were directed to admit only persons with visas or legal standing. The administration also continued enforcement of the “Remain in Mexico” policy, requiring migrants to wait outside U.S. territory while their claims were adjudicated or processed.

The administration defended these changes in part by pointing to declining arrest numbers at the southwest border—trends that emerged following stricter Mexican enforcement policies late in 2023 and further restrictions imposed by President Biden in mid-2024.

Supporters of the ban claim the system had become vulnerable to misuse: some asylum seekers file claims to gain entry and remain in the U.S. while lengthy court proceedings drag out. Critics argue, however, that the right to seek asylum is written into U.S. law and international treaties—and that even unauthorized border crossings do not eliminate that protection. They maintain that a fair asylum system is a vital refuge for those fleeing persecution, and that only Congress, not a president, can dismantle it.

---

Legal Tensions and Political Stakes

Judge Moss’s ruling dealt a significant blow to the administration’s enforcement strategy. His holding implied that certain executive actions, especially those altering core protections, cannot rely solely on presidential authority. The judge emphasized that the government must operate within the bounds of law—not rewrite asylum policy through unilateral claims.

Miller’s counterattack underscored how volatile the fight is: he accused the judge of being “Marxist” in his refusal to issue a nationwide order, invoking language that had become common in Trump’s rhetoric toward courts he deemed unfavorable.

In public statements, Trump has heralded recent Supreme Court limits on nationwide injunctions as a victory, viewing them as a green light to push forward many of his policy goals that had been blocked by litigation. Legal scholars have broadly agreed that the new standard strengthens executive power by narrowing lower‑court authority—though many disagree over how broadly that power should be deployed.

---

What Happens Next

In the near term, the government will appeal Judge Moss’s ruling. Meanwhile, the injunction’s two-week stay gives Trump officials time to prepare arguments to defend the asylum ban’s legality—or perhaps seek a narrower ruling.

If the appeals court upholds Moss, the administration’s ban may remain blocked, at least in part or in full. That would restore some version of the asylum process for Mexican nationals, unless Congress legislates a different approach.

The stakes are high—not only for immigration policy, but for the balance of power between branches of government. The case stands at the intersection of executive authority, judicial restraint, and rights protections. How the courts ultimately resolve it will shape the future of asylum—and presidential power.

In the weeks ahead, both legal filings and public rhetoric will intensify. The scrutiny will not only be on arguments about “invasion” or “sovereignty,” but also on whether courts can or should define how far a president may go when attempting to reshape immigration under the banner of national security.