INEPTOCRACY CHRONICLES – Federal judge appointed by Obama blocks Trump's asylum restriction policy
Rogue liberal obstructionism is continuing despite the Supreme Court’s ruling against national injunctions. Trump should ignore such judges and let them complain to a higher court.
By Sophia Turner on July 3, 2025
A federal judge has just thrown a massive wrench into President Donald Trump’s tough-on-borders playbook, according to Fox News.
In a ruling that’s got the White House fuming, U.S. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss, an Obama appointee, struck down Trump’s executive order aimed at stopping migrants crossing the southern border from seeking asylum or other protections.
This saga kicked off earlier in 2025 when Trump proclaimed on January 20, declaring that those crossing the southern border were part of an “invasion” and should be barred from claiming asylum or withholding of removal.
The move was a cornerstone of his hard-line immigration stance in his second term. It didn’t take long for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to step in, representing migrant groups and 13 individual asylum-seekers in a lawsuit to halt the policy.
Judge Moss Delivers a Legal Smackdown
By February, the ACLU was pressing the court to block Trump’s order before it could take full effect. Judge Moss, in a hefty 128-page opinion delivered on a Wednesday, didn’t just disagree with the administration—he dismantled their argument. He ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by trying to override federal immigration laws.
“[Trump] lacks the inherent constitutional authority to supplant federal statutes governing removals,” Moss declared. Well, that’s a polite way of saying the president can’t play emperor with a pen and a phone. This isn’t just a legal nitpick; it’s a reminder that even executive power has its limits under the law.
Moss didn’t stop there, acknowledging the “enormous challenges” the executive branch faces with unlawful entries and a backlog of asylum claims.
Yet, he stood firm, stating that an “appeal to necessity” doesn’t give the president a free pass to ignore Congress. That’s a jab at the administration’s tendency to lean on crisis rhetoric to justify sweeping actions.
The ACLU, naturally, is over the moon, with attorney Lee Gelernt calling the decision a “hugely important victory for asylum seekers.”
He argues it “reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed.” While that sounds noble, one wonders if the ACLU’s vision of open borders aligns with the practical realities of border security.
The White House, predictably, isn’t taking this lying down. Trump adviser Stephen Miller blasted the ruling, claiming a “marxist judge” is trying to bypass a recent Supreme Court decision by certifying a global class of future migrants. While the language is sharp, the frustration over judicial overreach is a sentiment many conservatives share.
Let’s unpack that Supreme Court angle—Moss certified a class of migrants affected by Trump’s policy, a move that aligns with a ruling in Trump v. CASA from the week prior.
That decision limited lower courts’ ability to issue broad injunctions unless a class is certified. Moss cleverly navigated this, using a “set-aside” provision to pause the policy, though the administration argues this sidesteps the Supreme Court’s intent.
Legal Battles and Border Realities
For now, Moss has stayed his order for 14 days, giving the Trump administration a narrow window to appeal to a higher court.
Given their track record, an emergency appeal seems almost guaranteed. The stakes couldn’t be higher as immigration remains a flashpoint issue.
The broader context here is Trump’s unrelenting focus on tightening immigration rules. Beyond this asylum restriction, the administration has invoked old wartime laws to deport migrants to a high-security facility in El Salvador earlier this year. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is already grappling with another Trump policy challenging birthright citizenship.
Critics of the administration, like the ACLU, argue Trump’s proclamation falsely paints the border situation as an “invasion” to deny protections to desperate families.
Their court filing claims the policy returns asylum-seekers to danger without due process. While compassion is warranted, the question remains—how do we balance humanitarian needs with the rule of law?
Moss’s ruling isn’t blind to the chaos at the border, admitting the government’s struggle to manage entries and claims. But his stance is clear: executive shortcuts won’t cut it when statutes are in play. It’s a principled stand, even if it frustrates those who see urgent action as the only solution.
Federal judge appointed by Obama blocks Trump's asylum restriction policy - Patriot Mom Digest
**********************************************************
Tired of missing the real news? Tired of censorship? Tired of our corrupt liberal mainstream press that only shows you what they want you to see? Subscribe to Ineptocracy Chronicles today and get the other side of the real news in your inbox daily. It’s free.
Paid subscribers get full access by request to my entire database of some 55,000 conservative news articles collected since 2005, converted to Word documents that include all original photos and links to videos and links to the original story by its original publisher. Simply send me your request, and I will share them with you via email. Find out the truth regarding misreported news stories from years ago. Students of history, politics and journalism will be particularly well informed.
Ineptocracy
A system of government where the least capable of leading are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
