WASHINGTON — On Monday, a coalition of immigration advocacy organizations initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration regarding its prohibition on asylum access at the southern border. These groups assert that the extensive restrictions imposed place individuals fleeing conflict and persecution in precarious situations.
The lawsuit, submitted in a federal court in Washington, contends that the actions detailed in one of President Trump’s executive orders are “both unlawful and unprecedented.” The complaint is spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The lawyers involved claim, “The government is enacting measures that Congress explicitly mandated the United States should not pursue. It is sending asylum seekers — including families, not just single adults — back to countries where they risk persecution or torture, all while denying them the opportunity to access the protective mechanisms established by Congress.”
This complaint has been filed on behalf of various organizations, including the Florence Project in Arizona, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, and RAICES in Texas. In response, the Department of Homeland Security indicated that it refrains from commenting on pending legislation, while the White House backed the president’s actions.
Kush Desai, a spokesman from the White House, stated, “President Trump was given a strong mandate to end the neglect and abuse of our immigration laws while securing our borders. The Trump administration will persist in prioritizing Americans and the needs of the country.”
Trump, through an executive order, asserted that the circumstances at the southern border represented an invasion of the United States and stated that he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants until further notice. This executive order also halted the capability of migrants to file for asylum.
The executive order referenced the Immigration and Nationality Act, claiming it provides the president with the authority to suspend the entry of any group deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” This latest move is part of a broader restriction on asylum access that initially commenced under the Biden administration, which had significantly limited the avenues for individuals entering through unofficial border crossings to qualify for asylum. Nonetheless, the previous administration maintained a system allowing up to 1,450 people daily to schedule appointments at official border entry points to seek asylum in the U.S.
This program was terminated on Trump’s first day in office as part of a comprehensive initiative aimed at executing mass deportations of undocumented immigrants while reversing policies from former President Biden that provided certain immigration pathways and protections, effectively enhancing barriers to entry at the southern border.
Proponents for asylum rights argue that the entitlement to request asylum is embedded within U.S. immigration law and that obstructing this right exposes individuals escaping conflict and persecution to severe risks.
Critics, however, maintain that a minimal number of asylum seekers ultimately qualify and that the already overloaded immigration courts can take years to resolve these requests, which necessitate demonstrating a legitimate fear of persecution based on narrow criteria such as race, religion, nationality, or membership in specific social or political groups.
In the filed lawsuit, the advocacy groups asserted that immigration “even at elevated levels” does not equate to an invasion, pointing out that the number of individuals crossing into the United States outside of ports of entry has decreased to levels not observed since August 2020.
“The proclamation falsely alleges an invasion to rationalize the eradication of all avenues for seeking asylum, showcasing a blatant disregard for Congressional efforts over four decades aimed at providing safe refuge for those in danger,” remarked Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney for the ACLU, who has litigated many pivotal asylum cases throughout the last two administrations. He added, “No president, including Trump during his first term, has claimed the authority to unilaterally abolish asylum.”
The organizations contended Trump’s declaration exemplifies an “extreme instance of presidential overreach.” They noted that the government is “quickly expelling noncitizens” in mere hours, denying them the chance to seek asylum or other legal protections, and not allowing them the opportunity to make a phone call.
