WASHINGTON — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has struck down a restrictive asylum policy in a ruling hailed as a victory for immigrant rights advocates.
According to a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the court’s decision in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security invalidated a Biden-era rule that significantly narrowed eligibility for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The court found that the asylum restrictions violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, and it sharply criticized the government’s departure from long-standing protocols requiring immigration officers to ask noncitizens if they fear persecution before deporting them. The ruling described the change in policy as “arbitrary and capricious,” harming vulnerable asylum seekers, the ACLU said.
Announced in June 2024, the Biden administration’s rule required asylum seekers to secure one of a limited number of appointments through the CBP One smartphone app.
The ACLU argued that this requirement placed a substantial burden on those without access to smartphones, cellular networks, or reliable internet—particularly in high-stakes situations where delays could cost lives.
Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump reversed the court’s decision. Within days, a coalition of civil rights organizations—including the ACLU, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Jenner & Block LLP, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the Texas Civil Rights Project—filed suit to challenge the Trump administration’s reinstatement of the policy.
The plaintiffs in the case were Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center (Las Americas) and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES).
The ACLU emphasized that the May 9 ruling should serve as a legal precedent safeguarding asylum seekers from future efforts to curtail access to humanitarian protection, particularly as immigration policies remain in flux.
The ruling also comes in the context of escalating anti-immigrant actions under the Trump administration. Congress had noted that Trump’s executive orders issued in late January instructed the Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and Department of Justice to take “all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in invasion across the southern border of the United States.” Advocates argue that this language framed asylum seekers as threats and led to the erosion of basic protections. The court’s decision may mark a step toward restoring due process for those seeking refuge.
In the wake of the decision, key figures from multiple immigrant rights organizations issued statements praising the ruling.
Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, called the ruling “a critical step in peeling back the illegal asylum restrictions at the border.” He added, “As a country, we have forgotten the historic commitment we made after World War II to never turn our back on people fleeing persecution.”
Keren Zwick, Litigation Director at the National Immigrant Justice Center, noted that the decision builds on previous legal precedents. “For multiple years, courts have rejected policies that block access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border,” she said. Zwick emphasized the court’s recognition that asylum seekers need more than four hours to consult with legal counsel before facing life-altering interviews, and that they must be given a fair opportunity to express their fear of persecution.
Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), pointed to the practical consequences of the overturned rule. “The rule emboldened border officers to ignore explicit expressions of fear and to intimidate or mislead asylum seekers into giving up their claims for protection,” she said. “Many people seeking safety were summarily deported to danger, and family members were separated despite having identical claims.” Crow affirmed that “no president can rewrite our asylum laws by executive fiat.”
Jennifer Babaie, Director of Advocacy and Legal Services at Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, also commented on the implications of the ruling. “This decision confirms what advocates have been saying for years: asylum seekers have a legal right to a meaningful opportunity to seek protection in this country. Four hours to find and then speak with an attorney, while in federal custody, is not the way to achieve a legitimate process,” she said.
RAICES Legal Director Javier Hidalgo framed the court’s decision as a response to a broader erosion of asylum protections over the past year. “The U.S. government gave border officials the freedom to ignore anyone’s viable claims of fear and to send them back to the legitimate harms from which they fled, endangering countless lives in the process,” Hidalgo stated. “Today’s federal court ruling reaffirms what we’ve said time and again—that the bipartisan war on asylum has obstructed equitable access to fundamental human and legal rights in ways both arbitrary and capricious.”
He concluded that the decision “is a major step in righting some of the many wrongs inflicted upon people and families seeking safety in accordance with federal and international law.”
As future administrations grapple with border policy, legal experts believe this ruling could have wide-reaching consequences for the standards governing asylum access. It sets a critical benchmark for how procedural protections must be maintained, even amid shifting political priorities.
The ACLU and its partner organizations say they will continue to monitor any new rules or actions that may restrict asylum access and are prepared to challenge them in court. For now, the May 9 ruling stands as a reaffirmation of legal protections that advocates say are essential to safeguarding human rights and preventing the unjust return of people to danger.
