Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Asylum Access at U.S.-Mexico Border
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered the extent of the U.S. government’s authority to restrict asylum access at the southern border, weighing arguments over whether migrants must be allowed to apply for refuge even if they haven’t fully entered the country. The case stems from the Trump administration’s efforts to limit asylum claims, a policy that continues to reverberate through legal challenges.
The core of the dispute centers on the interpretation of the phrase “arrive in the United States” as it appears in immigration law. The Biden administration, echoing arguments initially made by its predecessor, contends that migrants must physically be within U.S. territory to seek asylum. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued before the court that “arriving” means entering a specific place, not merely approaching it.
Immigration advocates sharply disagree, asserting that presenting oneself at a port of entry constitutes arrival. They warn that restricting access would incentivize migrants to cross the border illegally, creating more chaos and potentially endangering lives. Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, argued the court has, for more than 45 years, guaranteed asylum rights to those arriving at the border, consistent with international treaty obligations.
The case has deep historical roots. Lawyers for the advocates referenced the plight of more than 900 Jewish refugees aboard the MS St. Louis in 1939, who were turned away by Cuba and the United States and forced to return to Europe, with over 250 later perishing in the Holocaust. This event, they argued, underscored the moral imperative to offer refuge to those fleeing persecution, leading to the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980.
The 1980 act states that individuals “physically present in the United States” or “at a land border or port of entry” are eligible to apply for asylum.
The current legal battle originated with a lawsuit challenging the “metering” policy implemented first during the Obama administration, and continued under both the Trump and Biden administrations. This policy required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases were processed. A federal judge in San Diego ruled the policy illegal, finding that migrants had a right to claim asylum when presenting themselves at the border. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in 2024, stating that “to ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” and that presenting oneself to officials at the border constitutes arrival.
During Tuesday’s arguments, several justices questioned the practical impact of the case, noting that the Trump administration is not currently enforcing the “remain in Mexico” policy. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson specifically raised concerns about making a significant ruling on immigration law without an immediate effect.
Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, a plaintiff in the case, emphasized the desperation driving migrants to seek asylum. “The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats,” she said. “You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient.”
A decision in the case is expected in the coming months. The outcome could significantly shape the future of asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border and the nation’s obligations under international law.
