UPDATE — two further thoughts:
Understand, 95% of the people who show up at our border are “economic refugees”, and our asylum law specifically excludes economic reasons as a grounds for admission. Biden let them all in anyway, and now this judge not only insists that they be allowed to stay, but that we must grant entrance to anyone else who shows up at the border demanding to be let in. Biden opened the border in direct violation of our laws, Trump closed it, the royal judiciary has decreed that the floodgates be opened again.
Update. Further thoughts.
Remember “remain in place”? Would-be immigrants were told to stay on the other side of the border, file their asylum claim, and if successful, they’d be allowed in. Biden reversed that process, saying, “come on in, make yourself comfortable for a few years, and we’ll get to your case when we get to it”. He did that using his executive powers; Trump used that same power to reverse the policy, and a judge says he can’t do that? BS.
Another thought: In a move I hadn’t noticed last night, but one that was predicted in conservative legal circles after last week’s Supreme Court decision limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions based on a single individual’s plea for relief, the plaintiffs here moved to convert the individual claims to class-actions, and the judge has granted them that status. Will that tactic be sufficient to evade the Supreme Court’s ruling? Stay tuned.
Here’s the Politico article he’s referring to — notice that the judge has ruled that anyone claiming asylum, even those who have snuck across the border outside approved ports of entry, so no screening, no identification, false or otherwise, must be allowed to remain in the country while they have their individual case adjudicated and, doubtless, appealed over the ensuing decades. Some call that treason.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump’s proclamation declaring an “invasion” at the border cannot be used to justify the unilateral restrictions he sought to impose on asylum seekers.
President Donald Trump’s effort to crack down on asylum claims by immigrants crossing the southern border vastly exceeded his legal authority and must be halted, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump’s Jan. 20 proclamation declaring an “invasion” of southern border-crossers cannot be used to justify the “sweeping” unilateral restrictions he sought to impose, including severe limits to asylum applications and the ability to seek protection from torture.
Under Trump’s proclamation, people who crossed the southern border between “ports of entry” are barred from seeking asylum or invoking other legal protections that would allow them to temporarily remain in the U.S. while their claims are processed.
And the proclamation further says that immigrants who do arrive at ports of entry — designated locations where people can enter the country legally — are severely restricted from invoking those protections. To do so, they must provide far more detailed personal information than is required under federal immigration law, such as extensive medical and criminal histories.
By imposing the severe restrictions, the proclamation allows immigration authorities to quickly deport people who say they are fleeing violence, persecution or humanitarian strife, rather than processing their claims. Trump and his allies say this was a necessary step to regain control of an overrun border.
But Moss said those limitations go far beyond what the law allows. Existing procedures in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge said, provide the “sole and exclusive” means for the federal government to deport people who cross the border illegally — no matter how cumbersome or inadequate the administration views the process. Trump’s proclamation established “an alternative immigration system” that has no basis in law, the judge ruled.
….
Moss, an Obama appointee in Washington, said his ruling will apply to all people “who are currently present or who will be present in the United States” and might face the restrictions being challenged in the case. He said a separate ruling would address similar claims by those already deported under the procedures he has found to be illegal.
“The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote. “But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”
Moss agreed to pause his ruling for two weeks to give Trump a chance to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
….
Moss acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions but noted that the decision left room for judges to act under a federal law that allows them to “set aside” efforts by government agencies to implement new policies the courts deem unlawful. Moss’ ruling effectively blocks federal agencies from implementing Trump’s proclamation and requires that immigrants covered by the decision continue to have the ability to seek asylum or relief under the international Convention Against Torture.
A White House spokesperson called the ruling “an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty” and said the administration would appeal.
“A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally. The judge’s decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come to in illegally,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.
And then there’s this, from Legal Insurrection:
A pro-Trump group launched an online website Tuesday detailing the more than 250 legal cases against President Trump’s agenda and tracking the crucial nationwide injunctions that were issued by lower court judges before the Supreme Court halted the practice last week.
In all, the Article III Foundation listed 266 lawsuits at JudicialSabotage.org. But there are plenty more of them against the administration, brought by individual plaintiffs such as illegal immigrants looking to stay in the country.
“The primary purpose [of the online database] is so that people can understand the enormous scope of judicial lawfare against the Trump administration. It is not just a few lawsuits. It is overwhelming all over the country,” said Will Chamberlain, senior counsel for the Article III Foundation. “What stuck out was the sheer number of injunctions that have been issued against the administration in such a short amount of time.”
About a third of the 266 lawsuits involve matters related to immigration policy. Other areas include transgender policies, spending and firing freezes, and efforts related to the budget-cutting Department of Government Efficiency.
Here’s what the judge is reversing, precisely because it’s worked — can’t have that, can we?:
THE TRUMP EFFECT – Total Border Patrol encounters for the entire month of June 2025 was 6,070. That is less than a single day under Biden. As a matter of fact, the total number of encounters is less than half of a single day under Biden
on many days. Also, none of the 6,070 were released into the U.S. ZERO. President Trump has created the most secure border in the history of the nation and the data proves it. We have never seen numbers this low. Never. God bless the men and women of the US Border Patrol and God bless the men and women of ICE. The interior arrests and consequences help to drive down illegal immigration. The TRUMP EFFECT keeps America winning.
~ Thomas D. Homan
U.S. Border Czar
