Supreme Court may restrict asylum claims from those arriving at the southern border
WASHINGTON— Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump on Monday administration objection It argues that immigrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border.
Instead, the government says border agents can prevent asylum seekers from setting foot on U.S. soil and deny their requests without a hearing.
The new lawsuit aims to clarify immigration laws and resolve an issue that has divided past administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under federal law, immigrants who are persecuted in their home countries can apply for asylum and receive a screening hearing if they are “physically present in the United States” or if such a person “arrives in the United States.”
But since 2016, the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations have responded to border surges by adopting temporary rules requiring migrants to wait on the Mexican side before applying for asylum.
However, in May there was a divided 9th Circuit Court ruled These restrictions were illegal if they prevented immigrants from applying for asylum.
“‘Arrive’ means ‘to reach a goal,'” Judge Michelle Friedland wrote, citing a dictionary definition. “The person who confronted the border officer ‘arrived’.”
He said this interpretation “does not radically expand the right to asylum”. In contrast, “the government’s interpretation would reflect a radical restructuring of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch broad discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”
“We therefore conclude that a noncitizen stopped at the border by U.S. authorities may apply for asylum,” he wrote.
The 2-1 decision upheld the federal judge in San Diego who ruled against immigrants who filed a class-action lawsuit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.
However, Lawyer Gen. D. John Sauer called on the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate decision, noting that 15 judges from the 9th Circuit joined dissenting opinions that called the decision “radical” and “patently wrong.”
In football, “a running back does not ‘reach’ the end zone when stopped at the one-yard line,” Sauer wrote.
He said federal immigration law “does not give aliens anywhere in the world the right to enter the United States to seek asylum.” He said people from abroad “may seek to be accepted as refugees” but that the government can enforce its laws by “preventing illegal immigrants from setting foot on U.S. soil.”
Immigrant rights lawyers recommended the court reject the appeal because the government no longer uses the “measurement” system that requires immigrants to wait for a hearing.
They said that since June 2024, the government has restricted inspections and transactions of these noncitizens under a different provision of law that gives the president the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” if he believes it would be “prejudicial to the interests of the United States.”
The government also routinely returns immigrants who cross the border illegally.
However, the attorney general said the asylum provision needed to be clarified.
The justices voted to hear the case of Noem v. Al Otro Lado early next year and decide “whether an alien stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border is ‘into the United States’ under federal immigration law.”
