RAICES Bulletin: D.C. Circuit Agrees that Trump Lacks the Authority to Override Asylum
TL;DR On April 24, 2026, the D.C. Circuit ruled in RAICES v. Noem that the Executive Branch cannot use its "suspension of entry" authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to override asylum laws established by Congress. This decision validates RAICES’ legal challenge and preserves the right of asylum seekers—particularly families—to due process. However, the case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: On April 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling in RAICES v. Noem (No. 25-5243) determining that the Executive Branch lacks the unilateral authority to block asylum seekers or establish summary removal procedures by declaring an "invasion" at the southern border. The President’s power to "suspend entry" cannot be used to override asylum laws explicitly established by Congress.
Rationale: The court concluded that the "suspension of entry" authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) does not allow the President to bypass the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or deport migrants without due process. Because the INA mandates that any person physically present in the U.S. has the right to apply for asylum, the Executive Branch cannot extinguish that right through a proclamation or invent expedited expulsion procedures without Congressional authorization.
RAICES Impact: This ruling affirms RAICES’ legal position: the administration's day-one 212(f) proclamation is unlawful. By striking down these unauthorized procedures, the decision ensures that legal service providers like RAICES can continue representing asylum seekers who would have otherwise faced removal without a fair hearing.
Community Impact: This decision represents a critical victory for asylum seekers, particularly families and children. It preserves their right to seek asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—protections that would have been entirely inaccessible under the administration's proclamation.
Related Legal Battles: While significant, this case is part of a broader pattern of government attempts to restrict asylum access. Other legal challenges to asylum bans remain pending, and this specific D.C. Circuit decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, ensuring the legal battle continues.
Broader Immigration Strategy: Limiting asylum access remains a core objective of the current administration. It is essential for practitioners and organizations like RAICES to remain vigilant, bearing witness to the harms caused by such policies and zealously advocating in court to protect the asylum rights provided by Congress.
