Roshan Shivnani — April 28, 2026
Trump’s ability to enforce his own immigration agenda has stemmed from his outsized power. Whether it is through the Republican federal government trifecta or Trump’s landslide of executive orders, his power has allowed him to weaken the ability of immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship. This notion has, in large part, held true for the 4.5 million people seeking asylum as a result of fleeing instability or violence at home. Yet now, the battle between asylum seekers and Trump’s immigration agenda is set to change off the back of a new court ruling. A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border. Most importantly, they found that the president cannot circumvent that.
The reasoning for the court’s decision was more of a response to a common legal tactic the Trump administration has deployed: declaring emergencies to grant the president excessive power even when not clearly necessary. In this case, the court ruling stems from action taken by Trump on Inauguration Day 2025, when he declared that the situation at the Southern border constituted an “invasion” of America, suspending the physical entry of migrants and their ability to seek asylum. Once again, the administration argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants the president authority to suspend entry of any group deemed detrimental to U.S. interests, a legal theory the court flatly rejected. Instead, the DC Circuit said the proclamation and the federal rules stemming from it ignored laws Congress enacted, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, writing that barring individuals physically present in the United States from applying for asylum “cannot be squared with the statute.”
For civil liberties groups, the ruling was a clear cause for celebration. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who represents migrants at the center of the legal challenge, said the decision “will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing.” The administration, however, is not backing down. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman said the administration “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and vowed it would not be the last word. With legal pathways still available to continue the fight, such as asking the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the case or appealing directly to the Supreme Court, it would not be a surprise to see the legal battle of immigration manifest throughout Trump’s term.
Read more here:
Extemp Question: Should the Supreme Court uphold the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that the President cannot unilaterally suspend asylum rights at the southern border?
Extemp Analysis by: Roshan Shivnani
Agd: Immigration is inherently a more serious topic, especially in the case of asylum rights, so I would say go the narrative route unless you have a joke about Trump’s response to immigration.
Background: Give your judge everything they need to know – ex: a short description of what aslyum is and how Trump has tried to diminish those efforts in the past, this allows you to set up recent ruling and its potential implications on the future, which you need to explain depends on SCOTUS
Sos: Here’s where picking a question like this can shine, go hard of rhetoric for the lives of these aslyum seekers because for the majority of them it is quite literally their livelihoods which depend on asylum law.
Answer: I think regardless of political leaning the answer is yes, especially with the wording of question because defending unilateral power for major decisions is quite difficult. I would say Yes, because at it’s most basic level it upholds the separation of powers
- It’s congresses domain of power
- How INA was written to give congress power
- How Trump is defying that
- Setting a precedence of overriding legislative authority
2. Because emergency powers aren’t enough
- Trump’s justification has been through emergency powers
- Labeling situation invasion can’t override congressional statue (give other examples here)
- How this would allow rhetoric alone to overpower separation of powers
3. The upholds the court’s purpose
- D.C. circuit ruling serves as functional example of courts checking power
- SCOTUS going against that effectively weakens courts ability to check power because it is redefined as belonging to trump
- Rhetoric about what justice truly looks like
Don’t overcomplicate this speech, focus on clear explanation of legal issues (which often confuse judges) and differentiate yourself through impacts and rhetoric (there is no shortage of material especially on a topic as widescaping and serious as this)
