The administration has reacted to a federal judge’s order issued on Wednesday, which blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump earlier this year that prohibited Mexican citizens from seeking asylum after unlawfully entering the U.S.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and advisor on homeland security, sharply criticized the ruling on Wednesday, which deemed Trump’s suspension of asylum access at the southwestern border as unlawful.

This nationwide injunction follows a recent statement from the U.S. Supreme Court indicating that lower courts generally lack the authority to issue such injunctions and should restrict their rulings to the parties involved and the jurisdictions they oversee.

Miller expressed on X, “In an attempt to bypass the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions, a Marxist judge has determined that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (for instance, a significant portion of the planet) are part of a protected global ‘class’ entitled to enter the United States.”

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, appointed by Obama, has temporarily suspended the ruling for two weeks to allow the government time to file an appeal, as reported by Newsweek.

In his decision, Moss asserted that neither the Constitution nor immigration law permitted the federal government, including Trump, to “establish an alternative immigration system.”

Miller has consistently maintained that lower-court judges should not dictate the policies of the White House, reflecting President Trump’s description of certain judges as activists and Marxists when their decisions have obstructed nationwide policies, including immigration initiatives.

Trump regarded last week’s Supreme Court ruling as a significant triumph, potentially paving the way for the implementation of many of his second-term policies that had been hindered by legal disputes. Numerous legal experts, from both the left and right, concurred that it represented a substantial legal victory for the Executive Branch as a whole, not solely for Trump.

The ruling issued on Wednesday in the District of Columbia addresses Trump’s initial asylum ban, which effectively obstructed a route into the United States for those seeking asylum.

The proclamation, named “Guaranteeing the States’ Protection Against Invasion,” was based on Supreme Court rulings that affirm the duty of the executive branch, rather than Congress, to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty.

Trump declared a suspension of asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border, citing “public safety and national security risks,” with the suspension remaining in effect until further notice.

This ban had an immediate impact on individuals attempting to enter at the southwest border, resulting in the termination of the Biden-era CBP One app, which had facilitated appointment scheduling.

Agents were directed to process only those with valid visas or legal status, while the “Remain in Mexico” policy was implemented to keep immigrants outside U.S. territory. Immigrant advocacy organizations filed lawsuits against the ban, claiming it posed a danger to asylum seekers, as noted by Newsweek.

Arrests at the southwest border had already seen a significant decrease after Mexican authorities intensified enforcement within their own territory in December 2023, and again following President Joe Biden’s introduction of stringent asylum restrictions in June 2024.

Trump and his supporters maintain that the asylum system is being misused, attracting individuals who are aware that their claims will take years to be processed in the country’s overloaded immigration courts, during which time they can reside and work in the U.S.

Conversely, supporters argue that the right to seek asylum is safeguarded by U.S. law and international treaties—even for those who enter the country unlawfully. They stress that asylum serves as a vital protection for individuals escaping persecution, a safeguard established by Congress that even the president cannot nullify.

To be eligible for asylum, applicants must prove a credible fear of persecution based on specific criteria such as race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social or political group.