Supreme court to Consider Limits on Asylum Claims at Southern Border
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Trump administration concerning the rights of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The case centers on whether migrants must be physically on U.S. soil, or simply present at the border, to be eligible to apply for asylum.
The government argues that border agents should have the authority to block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. and deny their claims without a hearing. This interpretation hinges on a specific reading of federal law, which states migrants facing persecution may apply for asylum if they are “physically present in the United States” or “arrive in the United States.”
The case stems from a challenge to policies implemented as 2016 by the Obama, Biden, and Trump administrations, which required migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims were processed – a practice known as “metering.” in May, the 9th circuit court of Appeals ruled against these restrictions, stating that presenting oneself to a border official constitutes “arrival” in the U.S. and triggers the right to an asylum hearing. Judge michelle Friedland, writing for the majority, emphasized that the government’s choice interpretation would grant the executive branch excessive discretion over asylum access.
However, 15 judges of the 9th Circuit dissented, labeling the ruling “radical” and “clearly wrong.” solicitor General D. john Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing that federal law does not guarantee a right to enter the U.S. solely to seek asylum, and that the government has the right to prevent illegal entry.
While the government is no longer actively using the “metering” system, it is currently restricting inspections and processing of migrants under a different legal provision allowing the president to suspend entry of individuals deemed detrimental to U.S. interests. The government also continues to routinely return migrants who cross the border illegally.
Despite these current practices, the solicitor general maintains that clarifying the asylum provision is necessary.The Supreme Court will hear the case, Noem vs. Al Otro Lado, early next year to determine whether a migrant stopped at the border on the Mexican side is considered to have “arrived in the United States” under federal immigration law.
