Judge skeptical of Trump administration argument that federal courts can’t review border declaration

Advertisement

Advertise with us

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge Tuesday expressed skepticism over the Trump administration's assertions that its decision to declare an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border and suspend asylum access was not something courts had the authority to review.

Read this article for free:

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Monthly Digital Subscription

$1 per week for 24 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $4.00 plus GST every four weeks. After 24 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.95 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.

Monthly Digital Subscription

$4.99/week*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $19.95 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional

$1 for the first 4 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles
Start now

No thanks

*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $16.99 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $23.99 plus GST every four weeks.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/04/2025 (334 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge Tuesday expressed skepticism over the Trump administration’s assertions that its decision to declare an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border and suspend asylum access was not something courts had the authority to review.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss heard arguments in a Washington courtroom over a lawsuit brought by immigrants rights organizations, which are challenging a key executive order that banned the ability for migrants crossing the southern border to seek protections in the United States.

In the Jan. 20 order, President Donald Trump declared that the situation at the southern border constitutes an invasion of America and that he was “suspending the physical entry” of migrants.

FILE - A U.S. Border Patrol agent walks past four men being detained after crossing the border through a gap in the walls separating Mexico and the United States, Jan. 23, 2025, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)
FILE - A U.S. Border Patrol agent walks past four men being detained after crossing the border through a gap in the walls separating Mexico and the United States, Jan. 23, 2025, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)

Trump’s order asserts that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The government has argued in court that the Republican president’s determination that the U.S. is facing an invasion is not subject to court review, calling it “an unreviewable political question” in a filing.

Moss, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, repeatedly questioned the government’s lawyer on that point.

At one point, he posed a hypothetical question about whether the president — upset with northerners taking up residence in sunny Florida where he has a home — could declare their presence an invasion.

At another point, he asked, “Is there just never any judicial review?”

Advocates say the right to request asylum is enshrined in the country’s immigration laws and that denying migrants that right puts people fleeing war or persecution in grave danger.

Critics say relatively few people coming to America seeking asylum actually end up qualifying and that it takes years for overloaded immigration courts to come to a determination on such requests. People seeking asylum must demonstrate a fear of persecution at home on a fairly narrow grounds of race, religion, nationality or by belonging to a particular social or political group.

In the lawsuit, the migrant rights groups argued that immigration “even at elevated levels” does not constitute an invasion and noted that the number of people entering the country between the ports of entry had fallen to lows not seen since August 2020.

The groups are asking the judge to declare Trump’s order unlawful and keep him from enforcing it. The government has asked the judge to dismiss the organizations’ motion.

Moss asked for more written arguments on specific legal questions before making his ruling.

Report Error Submit a Tip

World

LOAD MORE