Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court of the United States appeared Tuesday to side with Donald Trump in a case that could allow his administration to turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.
During more than two hours of oral arguments, a majority of the court’s conservative justices suggested the administration has broad authority over border control and that migrants who have not physically entered U.S. territory may not have a legal right to seek asylum.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house.”
Legal dispute over “arrival”
The case centers on how to interpret language in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that migrants who “arrive in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum.
Lawyers for asylum seekers argued that the statute includes migrants who have reached the threshold of the United States, even if they have not crossed the border.
“If an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States has expressed a fear of future persecution, then the immigration officer shall refer them for a credible fear interview,” attorney Kelsi Corkran told the court.
But attorneys for the administration argued the opposite.
“You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. while you’re still standing in Mexico,” Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri said, adding that the executive branch can lawfully prevent migrants from reaching U.S. soil and invoking asylum protections.
Justices divided
Several conservative justices appeared receptive to that argument, focusing on where the legal line should be drawn.
“How close do you have to be to the border?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the dispositive thing that we’re looking for?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the government could effectively control access regardless of where that line is set.
“The government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is,” he said.
The court’s three liberal justices pushed back, questioning whether the administration’s interpretation undermines the asylum system.
“Imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “Why would Congress intend for that person’s request to be discarded, while someone who enters unlawfully can have their application considered?”
“That doesn’t seem to make any sense,” she added.
Policy at stake
At issue is a policy from Trump’s first term often referred to as “metering” or “turn back,” which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico when ports of entry were deemed at capacity.
The policy was halted in 2021 after a lower court found it likely violated federal law and international obligations. The administration is now seeking to preserve the authority to reinstate it.
Advocates warn that a ruling in favor of the administration could significantly restrict access to asylum.
“We have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum,” said Melissa Crow of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.
During Trump’s first term, tens of thousands of migrants were forced to wait in Mexico for weeks or months under the policy, often in difficult and dangerous conditions.
Nicole Ramos of Al Otro Lado said Congress intended asylum protections to be broadly accessible, citing historical failures such as the U.S. refusal to accept Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.
“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”
What’s next
The court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. A decision siding with the administration could reshape how asylum claims are processed at the southern border and expand executive authority over immigration enforcement.
