On July 2, 2025, United States (US) federal judge Randolph Moss issued an important ruling invalidating US President Donald Trump’s asylum ban at the Mexico border.[1] This decision has been at the centre of criticism towards Trump’s immigration policies, as well as long-standing debates on limiting the powers of the US executive branch. The ruling is considered to have significant consequences, especially in terms of asylum law and international protection standards.
Under Trump, border policies have tightened, and numerous administrative measures have been taken to deter illegal crossings. In this light, the “Remain in Mexico” and other asylum restrictions introduced in 2019 specifically targeted migrants from Central America. Trump’s new asylum ban was announced in 2025 at a time when his election campaign was on the rise again. The ban suspended the admission of asylum seekers entering the country through the Mexican border, with only narrow exceptions. Judge Moss struck down the ban on the grounds that its enactment bypassed legal processes, violated procedural rules established by Congress, and exceeded the limits of executive authority.[2]
Judge Moss’s decision is primarily based on two grounds. First, national and international norms require broad recognition of the right to asylum and individualised assessment of applications. Trump’s decree, however, is incompatible with these standards. The second justification is that under the Constitution’s principle of separation of powers; the executive cannot assume legislative authority on its own, and administrative regulations cannot override the will of Congress.[3]
The ruling upset advocates of tightening US border policies, while it signified an important victory for human rights organisations and migrant rights advocates. Following the decision, many civil society organisations declared “Asylum is not a privilege, it is a fundamental human right.”, arguing that the executive’s criminalisation of migrants is incompatible with the rule of law.[4]
This ruling is proof that migration and asylum policies will be one of the main topics of debate in the election campaigns. After the 2024 presidential elections, Trump and the Republican Party further strengthened the discourse that equates border security with national security. The fact that this approach is subject to judicial scrutiny, however, goes to show the efficiency of the checks and balances mechanism of US democracy. Especially in recent years, interventions by the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in the executive’s immigration policies have become more frequent. The Biden administration’s rollback of some of Trump’s executive actions during his term has also paved the way for similar lawsuits.
The right to asylum is not only a matter of domestic US law, but also of international obligations. The 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol mandate the granting of asylum to individuals in danger of persecution. Trump’s regulation is based on a very broad denial of asylum, which has also triggered a response from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.[5] The underlining of these international obligations in the judge’s ruling has reasserted the position of the United States as the leading country in the world refugee regime.
The executive impact of this decision is not limited to immigration policy. The judge found Trump’s attempt to speed up the process and bypass the role of Congress on the grounds of “emergency” to be legally unfounded. This approach could set a precedent for future executive action on climate policy, trade restrictions or similar executive actions. The presidential powers debate is a long-standing area of tension in US law, tested by new cases every term.
In the future, new regulations on the US border policies and asylum system may be on the agenda. The Biden administration advocated a human rights-oriented approach, while the Republican Party now promises more restrictive policies. This polarisation will continue to create uncertainty in the application process and legal risks for migrants.
The decision sends an important message about the international image of the United States. In recent years, the Trump administration’s asylum and migration policies have come under intense criticism for contradicting the country’s long-standing human rights and protection norms. The international community’s perception of the country as a “safe haven” has been undermined. Family separations at the border and rising denial rates have led many organisations, including the United Nations, to express concern. The Court’s decision can be seen as a symbol of the American effort to return to these universal norms. It also re-emphasises the principle that the individual circumstances of migrants from neighbouring countries must be taken into account, and that not every application can be rejected en masse without exception. In this respect, the decision constitutes an important milestone not only in terms of domestic law, but also in terms of the US’ loyalty to its international obligations.
Apart from the legal implications of the decision, its practical consequences will also directly affect the lives of migrants. Thousands of people whose asylum applications have been rejected or suspended will have their files reviewed, some will be freed from the threat of deportation and will have access to temporary protection.
In conclusion, the Federal Court’s ruling dated July 2, 2025 is an important milestone in the US legal order in terms of executive restraint and the implementation of immigration policies in accordance with national and international norms. The blocking of Trump’s asylum ban has contributed to the protection not only of migrants but also of the fundamental principles of American democracy. It is expected that the ruling will go down in history as a tangible demonstration of the power of judicial independence to balance the legislative and executive branches in the United States.
[1] Hesson, Ted. “US Judge Blocks Trump Asylum Ban at USMexico Border, Says He Exceeded Authority.” Reuters, www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-blocks-trump-asylum-ban-us-mexico-border-says-he-exceeded-authority-2025-07-02/, (Date Accessed: 06.07.2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25-306 (RDM). United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2 July 2025, https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0306-71, (Date Accessed: 06.07.2025).
[4] Keaten, Jamey, and Kirsten Grieshaber. “UN Migration and Refugee Agencies Cite ‘Fundamental’ Right to Asylum after New US Moves to Restrict It.” Associated Press, 5 June 2024. https://apnews.com/article/unchr-concern-asylum-refugees-usa-biden-restrictions-bef71e8f52088bef114ed3978d38ed16, (Date Accessed: 06.07.2025).
[5] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). “UNHCR Expresses Concern over New Asylum Restrictions in the United States.” UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/press-releases/news-comment-unhcr-expresses-concern-over-new-asylum-restrictions-united-states, (Date Accessed: 06.07.2025).
