Immigration advocates presented their case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Trump administration’s turnback policy unlawfully denied thousands the right to seek asylum, with significant implications for refugee rights.
On March 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C., immigration advocates argued before the Supreme Court that the Trump administration’s turnback policy violated federal immigration law. This now-defunct policy allowed immigration officers at official border crossings to physically and indefinitely block individuals seeking safety from entering the United States, disregarding their legal obligation to inspect and process asylum requests.
Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case, emphasized that for over 45 years, Congress has guaranteed the right to seek asylum for those arriving at U.S. borders, in accordance with international treaty 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. Nothing in the law supports that result,” Corkran stated.
The turnback policy, referred to as “metering” by government officials, marked a departure from longstanding practices and was deemed unlawful by the courts in 2022 and 2024. Although the policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration sought to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that declared the policy unlawful.
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Border Rights Project Director at Al Otro Lado and a plaintiff in the case, highlighted the humanitarian implications of the policy. “The right to seek asylum is not a policy preference or a loophole—it is a promise to human beings in their most desperate hour,” she said. Ramos underscored that families fleeing violence, including rape, torture, and death threats, should not be turned away from the border due to political convenience. “The question before the Court is whether that promise still means something—or whether it can be discarded when it becomes politically uncomfortable,” she added.
U.S. immigration laws have historically required government officials to inspect individuals seeking asylum at designated ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. This requirement is intended to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not sent back to dangerous situations without the opportunity to seek protection. Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), criticized the turnback policy, stating, “It fueled chaos and dysfunction at the southern border. And it was a complete humanitarian catastrophe, returning thousands of vulnerable refugees to grave harm.” Crow emphasized that for many, the turnback policy amounted to a death sentence.
Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, expressed hope that the Court would reject the administration’s attempts to manipulate the meaning of the border to evade fundamental protections under international law. “Our humanitarian treaty obligations, forged out of the horrors of WWII, are too important to suffer from the whims of CBP,” Azmy remarked.
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, condemned the Trump administration’s actions as an unlawful overreach that jeopardized the lives of thousands, including children. “Democracy Forward is proud to work with these brave plaintiffs and our partners to protect the rights of people seeking asylum,” she stated.
Rebecca Cassler, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council, reiterated the importance of the case, stating, “The Trump administration’s illegal turnback policy has flouted both U.S. and international law, all while creating massive dysfunction at our southern border.” She urged that the focus should remain on the individuals affected by the policy, noting that hundreds of thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers were sent back to danger, and in some cases, death. “They deserve justice most of all,” Cassler concluded.
For further information about the case, interested parties can visit the campaign website, No Turning Back.
Al Otro Lado provides comprehensive legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana, employing a multidisciplinary approach to protect the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.
The American Immigration Council works to enhance America by shaping perceptions and actions toward immigrants and advocating for a fair and just immigration system. Through litigation, research, and advocacy, the Council aims to open doors for those in need of protection.
The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies is dedicated to defending the human rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States, focusing on challenging cases and promoting policies that ensure safety and justice.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has been fighting for justice and liberation since 1966, addressing issues such as structural racism and governmental overreach through litigation and advocacy.
The Democracy Forward Foundation advances democracy and social progress through litigation and public education, working to protect the rights of individuals seeking asylum.
The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, a non-partisan organization within Georgetown Law, engages in litigation and public education to defend constitutional rights and uphold democratic processes.
According to American Immigration Council, the implications of this case extend beyond legal technicalities, reflecting a broader commitment to human rights and the protection of vulnerable populations.