Supreme Court Hears Trump Request to Block Asylum Seekers
The Supreme Court today will hear a case on whether the Trump administration can turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
President Barack Obama first limited some asylum seekers from stepping onto U.S. soil, where they could apply under federal law. President Trump expanded the policy during his first term, and the Biden administration rescinded it in 2021.
Lower courts struck it down after a 2017 lawsuit by immigrant rights groups and asylum seekers from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico, who said it was illegal and conflicted with the country’s history of offering refuge. The Trump administration has asked the justices to allow it to be reinstated, calling it a “critical tool for addressing border surges.”
At issue is whether noncitizens must physically enter the United States to apply for asylum or can do so by presenting themselves at the border. Federal law allows those “physically present” or who “arrive” in the United States to apply, with migrants referred for interviews to assess credible fear of persecution. The court must decide what it means to “arrive.”
For decades, the government has allowed claims at border crossings for those fearing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or political views. With fewer legal pathways, claims have surged, creating a backlog of nearly four million cases and long waits.
A 2016 surge of Haitians near San Diego led the Obama administration to “meter” entries. The Trump administration expanded that practice to all southern entry points in 2018, citing overcrowding.
Challengers say the law guarantees access to asylum and cannot be overridden by executive action. The administration says asylum obligations apply only within U.S. territory and points to a 1990s Supreme Court ruling allowing migrants to be stopped at sea without screenings.
Lower courts sided with migrants. A District Court said asylum seekers must be processed if they reach the border, even without stepping onto U.S. soil. The Ninth Circuit agreed, ruling that presenting oneself to a border official counts as arriving.
Judge Michelle T. Friedland and Judge John B. Owens said “to arrive” means to reach a destination, while Judge Ryan D. Nelson dissented that migrants must be physically in the United States. A larger appeals court declined to rehear the case, though several judges dissented, warning the ruling could harm border management.
