A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump's ban on asylum applications at the U.S. border is illegal. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said immigration law gives people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president does not have the power to override that right. The ruling directly challenges one of the Trump administration's core immigration enforcement tools. The D.C. Circuit is one of the most influential federal appeals courts in the country, and its rulings carry significant weight in legal battles involving executive power. The court's reasoning is straightforward: Congress wrote the right to seek asylum into law, and that statutory right cannot be removed by a presidential order alone. The administration would need an act of Congress to close that pathway legally. The decision is likely to face further challenge. The administration could appeal to the Supreme Court, which has already shown willingness to weigh in on immigration enforcement questions. Watch for whether the White House seeks an emergency stay to keep the ban in place while legal proceedings continue.
The Supreme Court blocked Trump from firing Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, preserving the Fed's independence from presidential removal power. A separate ruling the same day gave Trump broader authority to dismiss leaders of other independent federal agencies.
The US Supreme Court has blocked President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, who faced unproven mortgage fraud allegations. The ruling preserves Fed independence for now and keeps a politically charged removal case alive in the courts.
The US Supreme Court, splitting along ideological lines, has allowed the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against TPS protections in a case centered on Haitian migrants, leaving 1.3 million people from over a dozen countries vulnerable to deportation. Many affected individuals have lived legally in the U.S. for decades, with the ruling removing a key legal shield used to resist removal.
