A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump’s proclamation declaring an “invasion” at the U.S.-Mexico border and barring asylum seekers was unlawful, effectively paving the way for the United States to reopen its borders to individuals seeking asylum. The timing for resuming asylum processing remains uncertain, and the administration has indicated plans to appeal the decision.

Trump issued the proclamation on the first day of his second term, citing public safety, health, and economic concerns as justification for blocking asylum entry at the southern border. The order remained in effect until the president determined the so-called invasion had abated. While Border Patrol apprehensions have dropped to historic lows since peaking under President Joe Biden’s tenure, migrant advocates challenged the proclamation in court, arguing that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by denying the right of individuals to seek asylum on grounds such as persecution related to political opinion, race, or other protected categories.

A lower court previously ruled in favor of the immigrant advocates, but the border largely remained closed to asylum seekers during ongoing litigation. The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that Congress, in granting presidential authority to suspend entry by proclamation, did not intend to permit the broad removal powers claimed by the executive branch in this case.

“We conclude that the INA’s text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling stated. One judge partially concurred and partially dissented.

Immigrant rights groups hailed the decision, emphasizing that it reinforces the United States’ obligation to provide asylum hearings, a norm upheld internationally since World War II. Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the appeal, noted, “The court properly made clear that the president cannot simply waive away the laws enacted by Congress.”

The administration may seek a rehearing by the full appeals court or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. However, the ruling will not take immediate effect as the court considers any motions for reconsideration.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized the ruling during an appearance on Fox News, describing it as “unsurprising” and attributing it to politically motivated judges who fail to interpret the law impartially. She defended Trump’s measures as being within his authority as commander in chief. Additionally, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson confirmed the Department of Justice’s intent to pursue further legal review, stating, “We are sure we will be vindicated.”

For migrants and aid workers on the ground, the court’s decision represents a potential turning point. Josue Martinez, a psychologist working at a migrant shelter in southern Mexico, called the ruling a possible “light at the end of the tunnel” for those stranded for years. Still, he cautioned against premature optimism, recalling prior instances where legal victories were delayed or temporarily blocked.

Meanwhile, many migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries continue to endure harsh conditions in Mexico. The country’s asylum system faces significant challenges amid resource cuts and increased demand. This week, hundreds of mostly Haitian migrants left the southern Mexican city of Tapachula on foot, seeking better living conditions elsewhere in Mexico.