Immigration advocates argued before the Supreme Court 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 presented their case before the Supreme Court, asserting 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 the longstanding legal framework supporting asylum seekers. “For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations,” she stated. “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.”
The turnback policy, which was referred to as “metering” by government officials, marked a departure from established practices and violated legal norms. It resulted in thousands being denied the opportunity to seek asylum, forcing them to remain in perilous conditions in Mexico or return to the dangers they had fled.
In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization providing free legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants, along with a group of asylum seekers, initiated a class action lawsuit challenging the policy. Courts ruled the policy unlawful in 2022 and again in 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration sought to have the Supreme Court overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling.
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Border Rights Project Director at Al Otro Lado and a plaintiff in the case, articulated the moral imperative of asylum. “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, a promise forged after the world witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust and said ‘never again’,” she said. “Seeking asylum is not like taking a number at a deli counter and waiting for your turn. The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient.”
Ramos further stressed the importance of the case, stating, “We brought this case because the United States made a legal and moral commitment to protect people fleeing persecution. The question before the Court is whether that promise still means something—or whether it can be discarded when it becomes politically uncomfortable.”
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 crucial to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not sent back into danger without the opportunity to seek protection. Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), criticized the turnback policy, stating, “The government’s turnback policy ran roughshod over our laws and treaty obligations. It fueled chaos and dysfunction at the southern border. And it was a complete humanitarian catastrophe, returning thousands of vulnerable refugees to grave harm.”
She added, “For far too many, the turnback policy was a death sentence. We are here at the Supreme Court today for them, and for all people who continue to look to the United States as a beacon of hope, as a place where the persecuted may find safe haven. We will never stop fighting for the rights of people seeking safety at our nation’s doorstep.”
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 of international law. “Our humanitarian treaty obligations, forged out of the horrors of WWII, are too important to suffer from the whims of CBP,” he stated.
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, condemned the Trump administration’s actions, stating, “President Trump’s effort to abandon asylum seekers fleeing dangerous circumstances in fear for their lives is an unlawful overreach that imperils thousands of people—including children—in dire circumstances.”
Rebecca Cassler, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council, highlighted the human impact of the turnback policy, noting, “The Trump administration’s illegal turnback policy has flouted both U.S. and international law, all while creating massive dysfunction at our southern border. But most importantly, we cannot forget the people at the heart of this case—the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers who were sent back to danger, and in some cases, death. They deserve justice most of all.”
For more information about the case, visit the campaign website, No Turning Back.
According to American Immigration Council, Al Otro Lado provides holistic legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana through a multidisciplinary, client-centered, harm reduction-based practice.