Supreme Court Poised to Grant Trump Another Victory on Asylum Policy
The Supreme Court engaged in a pivotal discussion Tuesday regarding the Trump administration's authority to deny entry to asylum seekers at border ports, even if their claims are legitimate and they follow legal protocols.
At the heart of the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, lies a critical inquiry: does an individual arriving at a southern U.S. port of entry possess the right to claim asylum if they are physically obstructed from entering the country? The morning's deliberations focused heavily on the interpretation of “arrives in,” questioning whether someone who reaches an official port but is barred from crossing into U.S. territory qualifies under immigration law.
Justice Samuel Alito posed a thought-provoking analogy: “Does a person ‘arrive in’ the house when the person is not in the house, and is knocking at the door, asking to be admitted to the house?” This query reflects the court's conservative majority's grappling with the nuances of legal definitions.
Current immigration statutes stipulate that anyone “who arrives in the United States” must be permitted to file an asylum claim, allowing them to present their case regarding potential dangers if denied entry. However, since 2016, U.S. border officials have implemented a “metering” policy, turning away individuals before they can make their claims. Lower courts have previously rejected this policy, yet during Trump's second term, the administration has sought to reinstate it.
Kelsi Corkran, representing the humanitarian group Al Otro Lado and several asylum seekers, criticized the government's interpretation as “nonsensical,” arguing it contradicts American ideals and international treaty obligations. She emphasized that the law’s language reflects its historical amendments and “the natural way that we talk.”
“‘In’ is just how you describe being in a region. You wouldn’t say, ‘At the United States.’ You would say, ‘In the United States,’” she explained, drawing parallels to common expressions about arrival.
Some justices expressed skepticism about Corkran's arguments. Justice Brett Kavanaugh remarked on the artificiality of determining thresholds: “This seems very artificial, trying to figure out at the threshold, on the line, in the middle of the river.” He suggested that regardless of where that line is drawn, government interests would likely lead to preemptive actions against potential entrants.
“If we say ‘100 yards from the threshold,’ they’re going to stop you 125 yards from the threshold,” he hypothesized, indicating concerns about enforcement practices.
Corkran countered that ports of entry extend directly to the border; thus, if U.S. authorities act beyond that point to repel asylum seekers, they would be operating unlawfully in Mexico.
Kavanaugh remained unconvinced by Corkran’s assertion that the turnback policy inadvertently favored those crossing without authorization, as they would be on U.S. soil when encountering immigration agents. He suggested that better enforcement of unlawful entries might be a more effective solution.
Vivek Suri, representing the federal government, focused on parsing immigration statutes: “The text of the statute should control the court’s decision, and that text is, ‘arrives in the United States,’” he stated as arguments drew to a close.
Suri defended the metering policy as a necessary response to overwhelmed ports of entry, arguing it was essential for officials to manage capacity effectively. He disputed findings from a 2020 inspector general’s report that claimed some ports rejected asylum seekers even when they could process them.
The Biden administration ended the turnback policy after lower courts ruled against it; however, current asylum rights remain severely restricted due to other Trump-era policies facing legal scrutiny.
Suri asserted that despite the policy's cessation, the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction over this case because of intentions to reinstate it in the future. “This case isn’t moot because we’d like to reinstate metering,” he said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor invoked historical context by referencing the MS St. Louis incident involving Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany in 1939, many of whom faced dire consequences after being denied entry into the U.S. “We didn’t consider whether they were being persecuted,” she lamented, drawing parallels to current practices.
Suri responded by clarifying that moral considerations were not within the court's purview: “I do not deny the moral weight of claims made by refugees, but that is not the question before the court.” He reiterated that Congress's obligations pertain solely to individuals who “arrive in” U.S. territory.
