A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration overstepped its authority by trying to fast-track deportations in a way that bypassed legal protections set by Congress.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that while Donald Trump has broad power to limit entry at the border, people already inside the United States are still entitled to due process and established legal safeguards.

In its decision, the court found that the administration’s approach conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act. Judge Michelle Childs wrote that the president cannot create new summary deportation procedures or deny individuals the right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

These protections are designed to prevent individuals from being sent back to countries where they could face persecution or serious harm. The ruling largely upholds earlier court decisions that had already limited the policy while the case was ongoing.

The administration had argued that the president’s authority to remove individuals should be comparable to the power to restrict entry at the border. However, the court concluded that the policy effectively blocked asylum claims without proper individual review, which is not permitted under existing law.

There was some disagreement within the panel. Judge Justin Walker issued a partial dissent, agreeing that basic protections must remain but suggesting the president may have stronger legal grounds to limit asylum claims in certain situations. He also raised concerns about how broadly the ruling could apply.

Overall, the decision reinforces that while immigration enforcement powers are significant, they must still operate within the legal framework established by Congress and respect due process rights.