Federal judge delivers legal setback to Trump admin on efforts to use travel ban against asylum seekers and their families
A federal judge recently dealt the Trump administration a legal setback by ruling that it cannot use President Donald Trump’s travel ban to block Afghan asylum seekers from reuniting with their spouses and children. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga on Wednesday, July 29, states that the administration unlawfully applied the travel restrictions to families seeking entry through the federal follow-to-join asylum process. While the ruling left Trump’s broader travel ban intact, it prevented the government from enforcing it against a specific group of approved asylum seekers.
Judge rules Trump admin unlawfully applied travel restrictions
Trenga, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, issued the ruling while implementing an earlier decision in the case. He overturned the State Department’s policy of denying travel documents to family members of Afghan asylees based on Trump’s travel-ban proclamations. The court ordered the government to issue travel documents to five beneficiaries within 15 days and reconsider two additional applications without relying on the presidential proclamations. Trenga also retained oversight of the case until the plaintiffs arrive in the U.S.
Lawsuit stems from post-Taliban family reunification efforts
The lawsuit was filed by seven Afghan asylum recipients who received protection in the U.S. after the Taliban seized Kabul in 2021. After being granted asylum, each petitioner filed an I-730 petition seeking to bring spouses and children still in Afghanistan to the U.S. under the federal follow-to-join asylum process. Although U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved the petitions, the State Department either denied or delayed travel documentation, citing Trump’s travel-ban proclamations.
In a May 28 opinion that laid the foundation for Wednesday’s order, Trenga questioned the government’s interpretation of the travel-ban proclamations. He noted that Proclamations 10949 and 10998 expressly state that they do not apply to individuals already granted asylum and should not be interpreted to restrict anyone’s ability to seek asylum.
Court finds State Department policy unlawful
In his ruling, Trenga concluded that the plaintiffs’ relatives are “clearly seeking asylum” through the derivative asylum process and therefore appear to qualify for the exemptions written into the proclamations. He also found that the State Department appears to be enforcing a blanket policy instead of conducting the individualized reviews required under immigration regulations governing follow-to-join asylum cases. Ultimately, the court formally declared the State Department’s policy unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Major judicial setback to imposition of travel bans
Responding to the ruling, Lupe Aguirre, deputy director of U.S. litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), said the decision reaffirmed the government’s obligation to reunite protected refugees with their families. “August marks five years since our clients’ lives were thrown into chaos by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan,” Aguirre said in a press release. “Because of their support for the United States, they remain in danger from the Taliban and our asylum laws are intended to protect them. Today the court affirmed that the State Department cannot use the travel ban to abandon this population, or any asylees seeking family reunification.”
The ruling marks one of the most significant judicial setbacks to the application of the Trump administration’s 2025 travel restrictions, which apply to Afghanistan and several other countries identified as security concerns.
The ruling does not invalidate Trump’s travel ban itself but prevents its application to spouses and children of asylum recipients whose family-based petitions have already been approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.