The court’s three liberal justices dissented, saying the ruling “circumvented” U.S. law by allowing agents to block asylum seekers’ applications.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government authorities can turn back asylum seekers at the southern border with Mexico who have not yet set foot on U.S. soil.
Thursday’s ruling clears the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to reinstate a controversial policy known as “metering,” in which immigration officials physically prevent asylum seekers from crossing the border.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Rights groups argued that the practice was a way to circumvent domestic law that requires all people entering the United States to have the right to apply for asylum. They also point out that physically preventing individuals from applying for asylum would encourage more dangerous routes.
The 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservative justices ruling in favor and three liberal justices dissenting.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito pointed to a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that says aliens who “arrive in the United States” can apply for asylum and must be inspected by federal immigration officials.
“We do not have the policy wisdom before us to measure foreign arrivals at our southern border,” Alito wrote. “We simply determine that an alien in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States.’ The INA does not give such aliens the right to apply for asylum, nor does it require them to be inspected by immigration officials.”
The ruling overturns a lower court ruling that made the practice of “weighing” illegal. The Trump administration, which has taken a hard line against all forms of immigration into the United States, had appealed the lower court’s ruling.
The practice predates Trump, with former President Barack Obama using “metering” to turn people away at the southern border during the final year of his presidency as border crossings increased dramatically.
President Trump formalized the strategy during his first term, allowing border officials to deny asylum applications if they believe they do not have the resources needed to process them. US President Joe Biden’s administration ended the practice in 2021.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority’s ruling allowed the White House to “circumvent” legal procedures meant to ensure that every asylum case is evaluated individually.
She also highlighted the cruelty of authorities in refusing asylum seekers who arrive at the U.S. border fleeing persecution but are turned away.
“Asylum seekers may apply for asylum even if they are at the entrance of a port of entry designated to receive all non-citizens seeking entry, even if the port of entry has sufficient capacity to screen the person, including available asylum officers trained to process asylum claims,” she wrote.
“Even though it is certain that asylum seekers will be persecuted or killed if they are turned away.”
Sotomayor went on to say that the majority’s “illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by its obsession with a single word, ‘in,'” and argued that the majority did not consider the “legal context and history” of how that word is used.
The ruling came shortly after a federal judge ruled in early June that the Trump administration must lift another blanket moratorium on the processing of asylum applications it had imposed due to what it called a border “emergency.”
Haiti and Syria TPS rulings
In a separate immigration ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip legal protections from hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Haitians living in the United States on Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
This status is granted when it is determined that it is unsafe for a citizen to return to their homeland due to factors such as armed conflict, political instability, or natural disasters.
Approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians are currently believed to be living in the United States under TPS. Following Thursday’s ruling, TPS patients could be stripped of their work permits and subject to deportation.
Justice Alito again wrote the majority opinion, stating that U.S. law regarding TPS “clearly prohibits” judicial review of executive branch decisions.
Alito also disagreed with a lower court’s finding that President Trump’s actions toward Haitians were likely motivated by “racial animus.”
Plaintiffs in the case pointed to President Trump’s campaign statements, including spreading baseless claims that Haitians living in Ohio are killing and eating pets.
