McALLEN, Texas – A new class action lawsuit challenging the policies of the former administration regarding asylum at U.S. borders was brought forth on Wednesday. The lawsuit tackles a proclamation from the Trump era that essentially halted the ability to seek asylum at official ports of entry into the United States.
This legal action was initiated in a federal court situated in Southern California. The suit was filed by a coalition of organizations including the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the American Immigration Council, Democracy Forward, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. These organizations are urging the court to deem the proclamation invalid, overturn its policies, and restore the prior asylum process at ports of entry. This would reinstate access for those previously scheduled but had appointments canceled when President Donald Trump assumed office.
Distinct from a lawsuit lodged in February in a Washington, D.C., federal court—which involves individuals who had already entered U.S. territory by circumventing ports of entry—the lawsuit filed on Wednesday centers on individuals who are outside U.S. soil and are attempting to pursue asylum at official entry points.
As of now, there has been no immediate response from the Department of Homeland Security or Customs and Border Protection, both of which are identified as defendants in this legal case.
Trump’s executive proclamation, announced on the day he assumed the presidency, radically modified asylum policies. This initiative disbanded the conventional asylum protocol at the border. According to the proclamation, procedures under the Immigration and Nationality Act were considered largely ineffective amid the border environment, supposedly permitting unauthorized entries of numerous illegal individuals into the U.S.
Advocates argue that, under the proclamation, asylum seekers compelled to present extensive medical and criminal records—demands typically associated with visa processes—create undue burdens on people who might be escaping imminent peril.
In their formal complaint, immigrant advocates argue, “No clause in the INA or any other lawful basis justifies the actions taken by the Defendants.”
Under the Trump administration’s orders, thousands of individuals who sought asylum through the CBP One app, an initiative developed during President Biden’s term, experienced the abrupt cancellation of their port of entry appointments, interlinked with a proclamation citing a border invasion.
The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies strongly criticized the steps taken by the Trump administration, declaring them as “drastic and in blatant contravention of U.S. law,” highlighting the seriousness of their actions to obstruct access to the asylum process.