APPEAL COURT QUESTIONS TRUMP’S ASYLUM BAN. (PHOTO).

 Appeal court questions Trump’s asylum ban

A federal appeals court in Washington expressed skepticism Monday over President Donald Trump’s proclamation that effectively sought to end asylum in the United States, during oral arguments concerning a lower court ruling that determined the president had exceeded his authority under immigration law.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups challenging the proclamation, which Trump issued shortly after taking office in January. Judges questioned whether the proclamation conflicted with provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that guarantee asylum-seekers the right to request protection in the United States. Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, highlighted potential conflicts, noting that certain INA provisions require credible fear interviews and judicial review for asylum decisions, which a presidential proclamation cannot override.

Drew Ensign, deputy assistant attorney general representing the government, argued that Trump’s proclamation was a permissible exercise of presidential authority to restrict the entry of noncitizens under specific circumstances. He cited precedent from the D.C. Circuit upholding Title 42, a pandemic-era order that blocked migrant entry, to support the administration’s position. Judges Cornelia Pillard and Justin Walker, however, questioned whether that precedent applied, noting differences between Title 42 and the current case, which focuses solely on immigration law. Walker also raised concerns about the breadth of a potential class-wide injunction covering future asylum applicants far removed from the United States.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt countered that the INA is internally coherent and Congress designed its provisions to work together. He argued that the administration’s attempt to circumvent those provisions undermines the statute’s structure and that limiting the scope of the injunction would create ongoing legal challenges, requiring repeated court intervention each time a new asylum-seeker arrives. The panel’s questions reflected doubts about the administration’s legal arguments and the potential impact on asylum procedures nationwide.