The Biden-era border chaos may be coming to an end, but activist judges are still doing everything they can to stop President Donald J. Trump from restoring sanity, sovereignty, and the rule of law at the southern border.

On Wednesday, a federal judge blocked President Trump’s executive order that barred illegal immigrants from Mexico from claiming asylum after crossing into the U.S. unlawfully. The order, issued earlier this year on Trump’s first day back in office, was aimed at closing asylum loopholes exploited by foreign nationals who use the system to live and work in the United States indefinitely.

White House policy chief and homeland security advisor Stephen Miller blasted the ruling on X (formerly Twitter), describing it as judicial overreach that defies a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the limits of federal judges' authority.

“To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions, a Marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global ‘class’ entitled to admission into the United States,” Miller wrote.

The injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, who outrageously claimed in his ruling that Trump had no constitutional authority to implement the ban — even though the Supreme Court just reaffirmed the executive branch's control over immigration enforcement.

Moss argued that “nothing in the Constitution or immigration law” allows the president to “adopt an alternative immigration system.” But constitutional scholars and national security advocates have long held that the president holds plenary power to protect the nation’s borders — a position the Court itself reinforced just last week.

For now, Moss has paused enforcement of his ruling for two weeks to give the Trump administration time to appeal.

President Trump’s order, titled “Guaranteeing the States’ Protection Against Invasion,” drew directly from constitutional mandates and long-standing precedent, asserting that illegal entry en masse is a threat to both public safety and national security.

In contrast to the Biden administration’s open-border policies and digital entry gimmicks like the CBP One app, Trump’s ban revived enforcement of “Remain in Mexico” and made it clear that only individuals with valid visas or legal status would be processed for entry.

Advocacy groups and left-wing legal outfits immediately sued to stop the order, arguing — as usual — that the policy endangered migrants. Yet, the policy had already proven effective, leading to a sharp drop in illegal border crossings, according to Newsweek.

Critics of the asylum process — including Trump and his allies — point out that the system is regularly abused by economic migrants, who file dubious claims and remain in the U.S. for years while their cases crawl through overwhelmed immigration courts.

Trump’s defenders argue the administration isn’t ending asylum altogether — it’s simply restoring integrity to a process that’s been gutted by globalist pressure and domestic sabotage.

“President Trump ran — and won — on restoring America’s borders,” one source familiar with the policy said. “This judge is trying to erase that mandate and hand asylum rights to the entire planet.”

Still, open-borders activists insist that illegal immigrants should be allowed to seek asylum under U.S. and international law, regardless of how they entered. Asylum law allows claims based on race, religion, nationality, political views, or membership in a specific social group — but critics argue those standards have been watered down beyond recognition.

With Trump’s border policies working and Congress poised to advance the One Big Beautiful Bill, Wednesday’s ruling is yet another reminder of the judicial obstacles the administration faces as it moves to restore national sovereignty and constitutional order.