Supreme Court Ruling on Asylum Seekers

The Supreme Court has sided with Secretary of Homeland Security Mark Wayne Mullin and the Trump administration on the timing of when asylum seekers are considered to have officially “arrived” in the United States.

In a decision that split 6-3 along ideological lines, the Court determined that those seeking asylum do not officially “arrive” in the country until they physically cross the border. This ruling means they are not entitled to inspections by border officials until they have entered the continental U.S.

The case relates to the government’s “metering” policy, which was adopted in 2016 to manage the high number of migrants at the southern border. This policy limited how many foreign nationals could be processed for asylum by Customs and Border Protection each day. When ports of entry reached their capacity, additional individuals were barred from entering until the situation changed.

Subsequently, in 2017, asylum seekers and the nonprofit group Al Otro Lado filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the government was unlawfully denying access to the asylum process. A federal district court in Southern California ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring this policy illegal.

The “pay-as-you-go” policy was eventually retired in November 2021. However, the Trump administration sought to revive it. A divided panel from the Ninth Circuit Court supported the earlier ruling, insisting that an alien is considered to have “arrived” when they encounter U.S. officials, even if they are still technically in Mexico, and must be screened for asylum.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion that overturned the lower court’s ruling. The Court asserted that to “arrive in the United States,” one must physically enter the country. Therefore, according to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, those on the Mexican side of the border are not eligible for inspection by U.S. authorities.

Alito wrote, “Aliens will not ‘arrive in the United States’ until they cross the border.”

The ruling emphasizes the language used in other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and legislative changes that indicate Congress only intended these rights to apply after an alien has entered the country.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Sotomayor argued that Congress meant for border officials to process and screen all aliens who present themselves at ports of entry, regardless of whether they’ve set foot in the U.S. She criticized the majority’s decision as disregarding the statutory context and undermining asylum protections established for those fleeing persecution.

“Today, the court ruled that the executive branch can bypass all of these mandatory procedures by positioning U.S. immigration agents at the border and stopping noncitizens from entering U.S. territory,” Sotomayor noted.