An emergency motion filed by eight asylum seekers trying to stay their imminent deportation under the Trump Administration’s new immigration policies was denied as moot.

The administration agreed not to “remove the Individual Plaintiffs pursuant to Proclamation 10888 during the pendency of this case,” said Judge Randolph D. Moss Monday for the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The terms of the proclamation are sweeping and include the suspension of multiple immigration laws, but Moss said that the defendants “agreed not to employ these (or any other) provisions of Proclamation 10888 in removing any of the Individual Plaintiffs from the United States during the pendency of this action.”

The urgent request came amid a Feb. 3 lawsuit from the asylum seekers and immigrant rights groups seeking an injunction to stop the President Donald Trump‘s “Guaranteeing The States Protection Against Invasion” executive order from taking further effect.

The asylum seekers and the organizations alleged the president’s move violated multiple federal laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act, Administrative Procedures Act, and Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, and the US Constitution’s separation of powers. The groups, which includes refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, sued along with 13 asylum seeker co-plaintiffs.

But the asylum seekers made their emergency bid on Feb. 19, alleging that their removal to their countries of origin was imminent, pointing out in their filing that five of the original co-plaintiffs had already been deported. Moss ordered an administrative stay on Thursday to halt the others’ removal until at least Feb. 24.

Trump’s executive order, which he signed Jan. 20., declared an “invasion” at the US’s southern border and ordered the suspension of all unlawful entry into the country, according to the order. Undocumented migrants “engaged in the invasion” on and after the date of the order are also unable to invoke asylum-seeking protections under the INA and must be removed, repatriated or repelled.

The asylum seekers allege they’re being denied protections codified into law by US Congress under the INA, the withholding of removal statute, and FARRA. They pointed out that the executive order would allow Trump to “unilaterally override” congress, violating the constitution.

The groups alleged that the president’s order will impede their core work and activities and possibly result in a loss of funding, likely leading to harm.

The US Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Border Patrol, the State Department, the Justice Department, and various agency leaders are co-defendants in the case. They asked Moss to dismiss the lawsuit on Feb. 11, arguing the plaintiffs lack standing, that the district court lacks jurisdiction, and that their claims are outside the “zone of interests” of all the statutes they cited.

Trump has made many immigration reform efforts in his second term, which includes increased immigration raids , efforts to end birthright citizenship, restoring the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and pausing funding of legal services to undocumented immigrants. A federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked the president’s birthright citizenship order and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to narrow the injunction.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project, Jenner & Block LLP, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the District of Columbia, ACLU Foundation of Texas, and Texas Civil Rights Project represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Serv. v. Noem , D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-00306, motion denied 2/24/25.