Immigration advocates presented arguments before the Supreme Court, asserting 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 addressed the Supreme Court, contending that the Trump administration’s controversial turnback policy violated federal immigration law. This now-defunct policy allowed immigration officers at official border crossings to physically and indefinitely prevent 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, 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,” Corkran 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, referred to as “metering” by government officials, marked a departure from established practices and was deemed unlawful by courts in both 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’ ruling that deemed the policy illegal.
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,” Ramos said. “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 questioned whether the United States would uphold its legal and moral commitment to protect those 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,” she added.
For over a century, U.S. immigration laws have mandated that officials 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 to peril without the opportunity to seek protection. Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, 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 the dire consequences of the policy, noting, “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.”
Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, expressed hope that the Court would reject the administration’s attempt to reinterpret border policies 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 stated.
Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, condemned the Trump administration’s approach to asylum seekers. “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,” Perryman remarked.
Rebecca Cassler, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council, reiterated the importance of addressing the plight of asylum seekers. “The Trump administration’s illegal turnback policy has flouted both U.S. and international law, all while creating massive dysfunction at our southern border,” Cassler said. “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 additional context on the case, recordings of a press conference held on the steps of the Supreme Court and an interfaith vigil earlier that day are available online.
Al Otro Lado, the organization involved in the case, provides comprehensive legal and humanitarian support to refugees and migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana. Their work includes individual representation, human rights monitoring, and impact litigation aimed at protecting the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.
The American Immigration Council advocates for a fair and just immigration system, working to reshape public perceptions and actions toward immigrants. Through litigation, research, and advocacy, the Council aims to open doors for those in need of protection.
The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies focuses on defending the human rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States, championing 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 systemic issues such as structural racism and governmental overreach through litigation and advocacy.
Democracy Forward is a national legal organization dedicated to advancing democracy and social progress through litigation and public education.
The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, part of Georgetown Law, engages in litigation and policy efforts to defend constitutional rights and uphold democratic processes.
For more information on the ongoing legal battle regarding the turnback policy, visit the campaign website, No Turning Back.
According to American Immigration Council.