Divided Supreme Court weighs the right to seek asylum at the southern border
WASHINGTON— The Trump administration called on the Supreme Court to rule on the issue on Tuesday. Preventing immigrants from applying for asylum at ports of entry on the southern border.
Administration lawyers argued that the right to asylum, which emerged in response to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, does not extend to those stopped just short of a border post in California, Arizona or Texas.
They pointed to a section of immigration law that states that “a non-citizen who comes to the United States may apply for asylum.”
“You cannot come to the United States while you are still in Mexico. This must be the end of this case,” Justice Department attorney Vivek Suri told the court.
Immigrant rights advocates called this claim “perverse” and implausible. They said such a rule would encourage immigrants to cross the border illegally rather than legally present at a border post.
The judges seemed divided and a little unsure of how to proceed. But a conservative majority is still likely to support the administration’s broad authority over immigration enforcement.
However, several of the justices noted that the Trump administration is not currently implementing its “remain in Mexico” policy.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the court would make a major decision on immigration and asylum that has no immediate and practical impact.
The case revealed a fundamental conflict between the government’s need to manage surges at the border and the moral and historical right to offer asylum to those fleeing persecution.
More than 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany by ship in 1939 MS St. Louis It was rejected by Cuba and the United States. They were forced to return to Europe and more than 250 died in the Holocaust.
Worldwide moral evaluation has spurred many countries, including the United States, to pass new laws providing protection to those fleeing persecution.
inside Refugee Act 1980Congress said noncitizens who are “physically present in the United States” or “at a land border or port of entry” can apply for asylum.
To apply for asylum, a non-citizen had to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country because of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political views.
Only a small percentage of applicants win their asylum claims, and only after years of litigation.
But faced with an overwhelming wave of immigrants, the Obama administration adopted a “metering” policy in 2016 that required people to wait on the Mexican side of the border.
The Trump and Biden administrations continued these policies for a while.
Immigrant rights advocates filed a lawsuit, arguing that the measurement policy was illegal. They won before a federal judge in San Diego, who ruled that the immigrants had the right to seek asylum.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2024 in a 2-1 decision.
“‘Arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,'” Judge Michelle Friedland wrote for the appeals court. “The person who confronted the border officer ‘arrived’.”
The Trump administration objected.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that “the ordinary meaning of the word ‘arrive’ is not to approach a particular place but to enter it. An alien stopped in Mexico cannot arrive in the United States.”
A Justice Department lawyer on Tuesday said the court should reverse the 9th Circuit and uphold the government’s broad authority to block immigrants approaching the border.
“I cannot predict the next surge at the border,” Suri said.
“For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum consistent with our international treaty obligations,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, which argued the case. “Yet this administration believes that Congress has given it the discretion to completely ignore these requirements and voluntarily turn away those seeking refuge from persecution.”
“People turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping and death threats. You can’t tell families running for their lives to turn back and wait in harm’s way because their suffering is counterproductive,” said border rights project director Nicole Elizabeth Ramos. Al Otro Lado Who was the plaintiff in the case? “We filed this lawsuit because the United States has a legal and moral commitment to protect people fleeing persecution.”
