White House slams judge's ruling on Trump asylum policy: 'The latest example of judicial activism'

The White House on Wednesday night slammed a judge's ruling from earlier in the day blocking President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump hails Arizona Senate for audit at Phoenix rally, slams governor Arkansas governor says it's 'disappointing' vaccinations have become 'political' Watch live: Trump attends rally in Phoenix MORE's asylum ban, calling it "the latest example of judicial activism." 

"Today, a court has, once again, overridden and undermined United States immigration law," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 


Trump's asylum ban faced two major legal challenges on Wednesday.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday morning struck down most of the policies former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued that made it almost impossible for victims of domestic and gang violence to seek asylum.

Later that day, Judge Jon Tigar on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order to further block the Trump administration from enforcing its asylum ban.

The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for clarification as to which case the statement is referring to.

"Today’s ruling is only the latest example of judicial activism that encourages migrants to take dangerous risks; empowers criminal organizations that spread turmoil in our hemisphere; and undermines the laws, borders, Constitution, and sovereignty of the United States," Sanders said in the statement. "We will continue to fight for the rule of law and against these reckless rulings." 

Sessions earlier this year said victims of domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by nongovernmental actors generally will not qualify for asylum.

A few days later, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said victims of domestic and gang violence have to show that the government of their home nation was "unwilling or unable to control” the harm and either “condoned the behavior or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect the victim."

Sullivan called the policy arbitrary and capricious, saying, “there is no legal basis for an effective categorical ban on domestic violence and gang-related claims.”