In a lengthy ruling last week D.C. Federal Judge Randolph Moss struck down the Trump administration’s near total ban on asylum under the specious argument that the country was under invasion.

It is almost embarrassing for our federal court system that a judge even had to make this determination, in the same way that it would be humiliating for a judge to be called upon to rule on whether the sky is green. We can all see the reality that there is no such invasion no matter what Donald Trump insists.

Moss not only took this apart, but made the obvious point that, while the president has a lot of discretion over immigration enforcement, he cannot simply supplant the existing immigration system with one of his own choosing.

As positive as the ruling may be, we sadly have to wonder whether it even makes sense for those seeking humanitarian productions and a better life in the United States — part of our national ethos for well more than a century now — to continue to come. After all, the administration is arresting those who try to do everything right and show up for scheduled asylum hearings.

Trump’s just-passed mega-bill showers a staggering level of funding on ICE, making it the most resourced law enforcement agency, with a clear mandate to relentlessly pursue immigrants regardless of whether they’re going through a legal process.

On top of all of that, the highest court in the land, which is empowered to overrule judges like Moss, seems firmly in the ideological orbit of the president, with the law coming only as an afterthought. That was again demonstrated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing several men to be deported to South Sudan.

This is the second time the high court has affirmed the ability of the federal government to deport people with practically no notice nor ability to appeal to third countries where they have no ties and have never been. After the first, a lower judge had blocked this specific group’s deportation to a country that five years ago was in civil war and which is standing on the brink of war again; the State Department has evacuated all non-essential personnel and issued travel warnings.

Still, the majority shrugs and says it is apparently OK for the Trump administration to simply drop people off there with no resources or ability to get back to even their own countries of origin.

This is, to put it plainly, uncalled for cruelty. These are not the actions of a government that values universal human rights nor has any intention of complying with the post-World War II international agreements designed to prevent nations from going down the path whose endpoint was so acutely demonstrated by that conflict, agreements which generally prevent governments from directly putting people in harm’s way.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent noted, it’s not just that the administration is engaging in illegal and immoral conduct, but it has “the Supreme Court on speed dial” to quickly sign off on these efforts, often overriding what lower courts have ordered. That’s the mark of a high court unfortunately following in the footsteps of Congress in relinquishing its coequal power, instead putting itself at the service of Donald Trump. For people often preoccupied with their legacy, we can say this isn’t a good one.

___

©2025 New York Daily News. Visit at nydailynews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.