The Supreme Court’s recent ruling permits the Trump administration to block asylum seekers at the southern border, raising significant concerns about the future of asylum rights in the United States.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration may turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, asserting that this action does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, examined a now-defunct policy that allowed immigration officers at official border crossings to physically and indefinitely prevent individuals seeking safety from entering the U.S., undermining the government’s legal obligation to inspect and process asylum requests. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticized the decision, stating it “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution,” despite the established asylum system created by Congress.
In response to the ruling, immigrant rights advocates are convening for a virtual media briefing at 3:00 PM ET/12:00 PM PT to discuss its implications.
Erika Pinheiro, Executive Director of Al Otro Lado, expressed her dismay, stating, “We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress, which enshrined the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into U.S. federal law over 40 years ago.” She emphasized that the U.S. has historically allowed individuals and families fleeing persecution, torture, and death to seek protection at its borders. Pinheiro warned that this decision undermines the U.S.’s position as a global leader in refugee rights and could embolden other nations to unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety. “In a world of increasing conflict and climate disaster, this hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable is sure to result in many more lives lost,” she added.
The turnback policy, often referred to as “metering” by government officials, diverged from both international and federal asylum law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to endure perilous conditions in Mexico or return to the dangers they fled.
In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization providing legal and humanitarian assistance to migrants, along with a group of asylum seekers, filed a class action lawsuit challenging the policy. Courts ruled the policy unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration sought to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that deemed the policy illegal.
Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and an attorney for the case, stated, “As explained by Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the Court’s decision to greenlight the government’s turnback policy is an affront to congressional authority over immigration matters with devastating humanitarian consequences.” She urged Congress to enact legislation to correct what she termed the Court’s error and to ensure that asylum seekers are not forced back into violent and life-threatening situations.
This ruling effectively overturns immigration laws that have required government officials to inspect all individuals presenting themselves at designated ports of entry for over a century. Since Congress incorporated asylum into U.S. law more than 45 years ago, the port inspection requirement has been a safeguard against sending vulnerable individuals back to danger without the chance to seek protection.
Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), remarked, “This ruling should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law.” She noted that the majority opinion in Al Otro Lado suggests that the president may unilaterally override established law and infringe upon individuals’ legal rights if it aligns with political interests. Crow emphasized that the turnback policy did not merely delay entry for asylum seekers; for many, it resulted in a complete denial of entry, which in some instances became a death sentence. “While this decision is a significant blow, our movement will keep fighting to restore asylum as a lifeline for people seeking refuge,” she asserted.
Angelo Guisado, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, expressed his concern for the thousands of desperate asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, stating, “My heart is with the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers across the U.S.-Mexico border whose rights the U.S. has erased with the stroke of a pen.”
Sarah Rich, Senior Attorney at Democracy Forward, highlighted the broader implications of the ruling, stating, “On the 250th anniversary year of the United States, our federal executive branch is abandoning its obligations to asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances in fear for their lives.” She called the Supreme Court’s decision disappointing and urged Americans to demand that the government protect the families the Court has abandoned. “Congress should act to protect not only the lives of asylum seekers but also the best of American values,” Rich added.
Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, criticized the ruling, stating, “Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system; it only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families.” She emphasized the need for an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats individuals with dignity. “Unfortunately, today’s decision validates an approach that treats people seeking safety as a problem to shut out instead of creating an orderly system that actually works,” Cassler concluded.
For more information about the case, visit the campaign website, No Turning Back.
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. They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and those seeking asylum.
The American Immigration Council aims to strengthen America by shaping perceptions and actions toward immigrants and immigration, advocating for a fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection. The Council employs coordinated approaches to advance change through litigation, research, legislative advocacy, and communications.
The Center for Constitutional Rights collaborates with threatened communities to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center has challenged oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach.
The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States, utilizing strategic focus and legal expertise to champion challenging cases, fight for due process, and promote policies that ensure safety and justice for refugees.
The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement.
The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan public interest organization within Georgetown Law, engaging in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect democratic processes.
According to American Immigration Council, the implications of this ruling could reshape the landscape of asylum rights in the United States.
