The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant appeal from the Trump administration regarding the rights of migrants seeking asylum at the southern border. This case will address whether border agents can prevent migrants from entering the United States to file their asylum claims and will clarify existing immigration laws that have been contentious among various administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under current federal law, individuals facing persecution in their home countries can apply for asylum if they are “physically present in the United States” or if they “arrive in the United States.” However, since 2016, successive administrations—including those of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump—have implemented temporary measures requiring migrants to wait in Mexico before they can submit asylum applications.
In a recent ruling from May, the divided 9th Circuit Court deemed these restrictions illegal if they obstructed migrants from applying for asylum. Judge Michelle Friedland emphasized that to “arrive” means to reach a destination, stating, “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’” She argued that this interpretation does not significantly expand asylum rights but rather counters the government’s interpretation, which she described as a “radical reconstruction” of the application process.
The recent decision was a 2-1 ruling that upheld a lower court’s determination in favor of migrants who had filed a class-action suit after being denied asylum hearings. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has urged the Supreme Court to review this ruling, arguing that it conflicts with the rights accorded under federal law. He contends that immigration law does not grant individuals from around the world an automatic right to enter the United States solely to seek asylum, noting that such individuals may seek admission as refugees from abroad instead.
The case, known as Noem vs. Al Otro Lado, is expected to be heard early next year. The Supreme Court will decide whether an individual who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border qualifies as having “arrived in the United States” under federal immigration law.
Immigrant rights lawyers have recommended that the court reject the appeal, arguing that the government is no longer employing the “metering” system, which previously required migrants to await their hearings. Since June 2024, they claim the government has imposed restrictions on the inspection and processing of non-citizens based on a different legal provision allowing the president to suspend the entry of certain classes of aliens deemed detrimental to U.S. interests.
The implications of this case are significant, as it could reshape the landscape of asylum claims at the southern border, impacting countless individuals seeking refuge. As the situation continues to evolve, the Supreme Court’s ruling may establish new precedents regarding the rights of migrants and the authority of federal immigration officials.
