RAICES v. Noem - District Court (Asylum Ban)

[ARCHIVED - September 2025]

Three immigrant-serving organizations–RAICES, Las Americas, and the Florence Project–brought this class action suit to challenge President Trump’s executive order (“asylum ban EO”) that denies noncitizens coming to the southern border their right (protected by U.S. law) to request humanitarian protection. Plaintiffs allege that the executive order and DHS’s actions implementing it violate various statutes, the Constitution, and the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

On February 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to temporarily block the government from implementing or enforcing the asylum ban EO and prevent the government from relying on any removal orders already issued to noncitizens per this asylum ban EO until the final resolution of the case. The same day, Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion to stay (temporarily block) the removal of individual Plaintiffs who were currently in the country. Judge Moss ordered the parties to appear for a hearing the next day on February 20 on Plaintiffs’ emergency motion.

Shortly after the February 20 hearing, Judge Moss entered a short administrative stay preventing the removal of these individuals until February 24, 2025—which is the same date the judge set for an additional hearing on the matter—and gave the government a chance to respond to Plaintiffs’ emergency motion before the February 24 hearing. On February 22, following the government’s reply, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a stay as moot given the government’s representations in their reply that they will not remove individual Plaintiffs per the asylum ban EO for the remainder of the litigation. In the same order, the Court required parties to file a joint status report by February 26 proposing a schedule for the remainder of the case in order to resolve Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

On February 26, after the the parties submitted their joint status report, the Court granted the parties’ request to treat Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as a motion for summary judgment.

On March 24, the government filed their own motion for summary judgment while opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and the Court set a hearing for the cross-motions for summary judgment on April 29, 2025.

On July 2, the Court granted relief for Plaintiffs in two parts. First, the judge certified a nationwide class for Plaintiffs, for  all individuals who are or will be subject to the asylum ban EO who are currently present or will be present in the United States. The judge also partially granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the President did not have the authority—under immigration laws or the Constitution—to issue the EO denying noncitizens arriving to the southern border the right to request asylum. The order does not go into effect until July 16 to allow the government time to implement the judge’s order or appeal the order to the D.C. Court of Appeals. The judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot, stating that it was unnecessary given the other forms of relief granted by the Court, and left open for future consideration Plaintiffs’ other claims that the President violated the APA. The same day, the government noticed their appeal of the judge’s orders regarding granting partial summary judgment and class certification to the D.C. Circuit.

The judge also requested that the parties submit a joint status report by July 11 proposing a schedule for briefing in order to resolve the issue as to whether the Court should grant relief to Plaintiffs and class members who are no longer present in the United States.