Supreme Court Weighs Asylum Rights at US-Mexico Border

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared poised to grant the Trump administration broad authority to block asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, even before they reach a port of entry, a decision that would likely reshape the landscape of asylum law and potentially reverse decades of precedent.

During oral arguments, a majority of the conservative justices signaled skepticism toward the claims of immigrant advocates who argue that individuals seeking refuge should be allowed to apply for asylum once they reach a designated port of arrival. The case centers on the interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically the phrase “arrive in the United States.”

Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri argued that an individual is not considered to have “arrived” in the U.S. Although still physically located in Mexico. “You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. While you’re still standing in Mexico,” Suri stated, asserting the administration’s right to prevent migrants from reaching U.S. Soil to initiate an asylum claim.

The administration’s position drew sharp questioning from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who questioned the practical implications of a ruling in the government’s favor, particularly given that the Trump administration is not currently enforcing the “remain in Mexico” policy. Justice Jackson challenged the government’s reading of the statute, suggesting it could incentivize illegal border crossings. “Your reading of the statute suggests Congress was authorizing asylum by requiring people to break the law in order to obtain it,” she said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed similar concerns, asking, “Why would Congress do that?” He questioned why the law would privilege those who enter the country illegally over those who attempt to enter legally through ports of entry.

The legal battle stems from a policy implemented during the Trump administration that effectively blocked the entry of non-citizens at the southern border, including those seeking asylum. This practice, often referred to as “metering,” involved limiting the number of asylum seekers who could present themselves at ports of entry each day, forcing many to wait in dangerous conditions in Mexico.

Immigration advocates, led by the organization Al Otro Lado, challenged the policy in court, arguing it violated federal law and international treaty obligations. A federal judge in San Diego ruled in favor of the advocates, finding that migrants had a right to claim asylum. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in 2024, stating that “to ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” and that someone presenting themselves to officials at the border had, in fact, “arrived.”

Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, argued before the court that Congress has guaranteed the right to seek asylum for over 45 years, consistent with international obligations. “Yet this administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim,” she said.

The case evokes historical parallels to the plight of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis in 1939, who were turned away by Cuba and the United States and forced to return to Europe. This event spurred the development of international laws protecting those fleeing persecution, culminating in the Refugee Act of 1980, which codified the right to seek asylum for individuals “physically present in the United States” or “at a land border or port of entry.”

Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, emphasized the human cost of the policy. “The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot share families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient,” she said.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks, which will likely have significant implications for the future of asylum policy at the U.S.-Mexico border.