Trump’s Asylum Ban Sparks Legal Battle as Advocacy Groups Sue Over ‘Illegal’ Order
Donald Trump arrives for a campaign rally at Kinston Regional Jetport in Kinston, North Carolina.
President Donald Trump’s latest executive order has sparked a legal battle, with advocacy groups arguing that his directive unlawfully categorizes asylum seekers alongside undocumented immigrants, violating federal law. A coalition of advocacy groups from Texas and Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the administration’s mass deportation program, challenging its legality and humanitarian consequences.
The lawsuit argues that Trump’s order directly contradicts the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which Congress enacted to provide a legal framework for individuals fleeing persecution or torture. “Via the Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’), Congress has created a comprehensive statutory system allowing noncitizens fleeing persecution or torture to seek protection in the United States,” the lawsuit states.
“Congress has given these individuals statutory rights to apply for asylum and other protections. And it has prohibited the government from returning these individuals to places where they face persecution or torture.” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, called the order “an unprecedented power grab that will put countless lives in danger.”
“No president has the authority to unilaterally override the protections Congress has afforded those fleeing danger,” Gelernt stated, emphasizing that Trump’s directive goes beyond executive powers. Richard Caldarone, senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, echoed these concerns, labeling the move as the “latest flagrantly illegal attempt by the executive branch to end humanitarian protection at the U.S.-Mexico border.”
“The immigration laws do not give the president autocratic power to override Congress and brazenly violate U.S. treaty obligations related to the protection of refugees,” Caldarone said. He warned that the directive would place “thousands of people in danger of persecution, torture, and death.”
Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project, condemned Trump’s attempt to suspend asylum protections, calling it “extreme, unjust, and a disservice to families seeking safety at our southern border.”
“Denying migrants and displaced individuals from the opportunity to find safety undermines our nation’s values and creates additional strain on our already burdened border communities,” Garza said. She emphasized that the lawsuit aims to “underscore the unlawful nature of this policy and emphasize the need to protect asylum seekers’ rights.”
The lawsuit seeks to overturn Trump’s executive order and reaffirm the legal right of asylum seekers to apply for protection under U.S. law. Advocacy groups argue that the U.S. should uphold its humanitarian commitments and “lead by example in implementing fair immigration practices.” As the legal fight unfolds, Trump’s directive is expected to face intense scrutiny in the courts, with opponents arguing that the order sets a dangerous precedent in immigration policy.
