Under the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress required the executive branch to establish a process for any person physically present in the country or at a port of entry to seek asylum. It also prohibited government officials from sending noncitizens to places where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Congress once again addressed the nation’s asylum procedures by requiring the executive branch to exempt from expedited removal anyone who intended to seek asylum and expressed a credible fear of persecution. The goal of these provisions was to make sure that the government would not force people with potentially valid asylum claims back to countries in which they faced persecution without first considering their claims.

The Trump Administration nonetheless instituted an “Asylum Shutdown Policy” that turns away” people who are trying to present themselves at ports of entry to seek asylum, leaving them stranded in places in which they are subject to grave danger. A coalition of immigrants’ rights organizations brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and the government moved to dismiss the case.

In December 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief in the District Court explaining why it should not dismiss the case. Our brief argues that the Policy is unlawful for three reasons.

First, the provisions of law that the Trump Administration relies upon do not give the President the power to restrict the ability to apply for asylum. Most significantly, § 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides that the President can “suspend the entry” of anyone whose entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” As the provision’s text and history make clear, it addresses the criteria for “admission” into the country. But admissibility is not—and has never been—a prerequisite to applying for asylum. Thus, the President’s § 1182(f) power gives him no discretion to prevent people from applying for asylum.

Second, President Trump’s policy upends Congress’s deliberate decisions about how the nation’s asylum system should operate. Congress passed laws to limit the executive’s control of asylum admissions and guarantee each asylum-seeker the opportunity to have the government consider their claim. It sought to replace an ad-hoc system driven by the executive branch’s discretion with a system in which every person’s application for asylum

is fairly considered. Over the decades, Congress has reiterated that all asylum-seekers are entitled to individualized assessment of their claims, regardless of the President’s power to suspend entry.

Finally, the Trump Administration’s arguments are at odds with historical practice. For decades, the executive branch has consistently recognized that § 1182(f) does not allow the President to deny people the right to pursue a claim for asylum. For this reason, no President has attempted to use that statute to prohibit access to the U.S. asylum process.