A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Trump administration's executive order that would have suspended asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that the president cannot override existing immigration laws.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws provide individuals with the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the executive branch cannot circumvent those statutory requirements.

In the majority opinion, Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote that "the power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA's mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals." The court concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not authorize the president to remove asylum seekers under procedures outside existing law or to suspend their right to apply for asylum.

Judge Justin Walker filed a partial dissent, arguing that while the law protects immigrants from removal to countries where they would face persecution, the administration could issue broad denials of asylum applications. However, Walker agreed with the majority that the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they will be persecuted or eliminate mandatory procedural protections.

The ACLU, which challenged the executive order, called the ruling "essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims." The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision.

The blocked executive order was described as a key component of the administration's broader immigration enforcement strategy at the southern border. The appeals court's decision upholds a lower court ruling that had previously found the asylum restrictions unlawful.