The Supreme Court’s recent ruling permits the Trump administration to block asylum seekers at the southern border, raising concerns about the implications for U.S. immigration law and humanitarian obligations.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration is permitted to 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, focused on a now-defunct policy that allowed immigration officers at official border crossings to physically and indefinitely prevent individuals seeking safety from entering the United States. This policy was seen as a violation of 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 that it “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution,” despite the comprehensive asylum system established by Congress.
In response to the ruling, immigrant rights advocates are scheduled to gather 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 concern that the ruling contravenes international law and undermines the intent of Congress, which has upheld the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention in U.S. federal law for over 40 years. “For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families fleeing persecution, torture, and death to seek protection at its borders,” she stated. “This decision has destroyed the United States’ position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety.”
The policy, referred to as “metering” by government officials, diverged from both international and federal asylum law. It effectively denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing many to endure hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the dangers they had 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 against the policy 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 unlawful.
Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case, remarked, “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 emphasized that it is now up to Congress to enact legislation that corrects the Court’s ruling and ensures that asylum seekers are not forced back into violent and life-threatening situations.
The ruling effectively overturns immigration laws that have mandated 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 crucial in preventing the government from sending vulnerable individuals back to danger without allowing them to seek protection.
Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), stated, “This ruling should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law.” She added that the majority opinion suggests the president may unilaterally override decades of established law and infringe on individuals’ legal rights if it aligns with a political agenda. “For far too many asylum seekers, the policy denied entry entirely. In some cases, that became a death sentence.”
Angelo Guisado, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, shared his dismay, 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, criticized the decision, noting that it abandons the U.S. obligations to asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances. “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will put even more people and families in harm’s way,” she said. Rich urged Americans to demand that the government protect the families affected by the Court’s ruling.
Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, emphasized that blocking individuals from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will not resolve the broken immigration system. “It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families,” she said. Cassler called for an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats individuals with dignity.
For more information about the case, 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 through a multidisciplinary, client-centered approach. They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.
The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping public perception and policy regarding immigrants and immigration, advocating for a fair and just immigration system that welcomes those in need of protection. The Council employs coordinated approaches to advance change, including litigation, research, legislative advocacy, and communications.
The Center for Constitutional Rights fights for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications, addressing issues such as structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach since 1966.
The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States, focusing on challenging cases, fighting for due process, and promoting policies that ensure safety and justice for refugees.
The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that promotes democracy and social progress through litigation, policy advocacy, public education, and regulatory engagement.
The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan, public interest organization within Georgetown Law that engages in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect democratic processes.
This article is based on information from the American Immigration Council.
