DC Appeals Court Rules (AGAIN!) Trump Pretended To Have Power Over Asylum Seekers... He Plainly Lacked. End Of Tangerine Proclamation 10888.

A per curiam opinion -- out of the DC federal Court of Appeals today tells us all what we long knew: Trump cannot countermand Congressionally mandated due process, for people who seek protection from abuse at our borders -- no matter where they cross.

Once again, his black Sharpie scribbles mean. . . essentially nothing, not without an entirely new act of the Congress. And that never happened. At all.

So he is (again) toast -- and people seeking asylum in the US must be granted due process hearings, despite what the dotard says -- here's that 105 pager, and a bit of the opening stanzas:

. . .More than a century of precedent assures that “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete” than it is over the admission of foreign individuals. Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899, 903 (2024) (quoting Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909)); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983) (“The plenary authority of Congress over aliens under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 is not open to question.”). . . .

This is a statutory interpretation case. Our task is to determine whether Congress has granted the Executive the authority to remove foreign individuals present in the United States without adhering to the removal procedures or providing the substantive removal protections that Congress prescribed in the INA. . . .

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 Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. We also affirm the district court’s class certification order, modifying the class definition as clarified by this opinion. . . .

Yep -- bit by bit, sanity (and the rule of actual law) is making a come-back. Onward, resolutely.

नमस्ते