Sotomayor warns – Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a sharp dissent after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision backed a narrower reading of when asylum-seekers are considered to have “arrived” in the United States, arguing the ruling will lead to increased violence along the U.S.-M
The courtroom heard a warning that landed with particular force: “More people will die.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said those words Thursday from the bench after the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that strips legal rights from asylum-seekers—specifically, the ability to claim asylum after being blocked at ports of entry.
The dispute grew out of a “metering” policy first put in place at the end of President Barack Obama’s administration. ended during President Joe Biden’s time in office. and then was sought to be revived by the Trump administration. Under that approach, ports of entry could limit daily capacity. People seeking asylum were turned away by the thousands.
At the heart of the case was a question of timing and legal status: whether those who had made it to a port of entry but were blocked or turned away before crossing onto American soil are considered to have “arrived” in the United States. If they are not. then the law’s asylum protections at the border would not attach the way asylum-seekers have argued they should.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, rejected the idea that a person can “arrive” without entering. “In ordinary speech. no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example. a house. a city. or a country — before the person enters that place. ” Alito wrote. He continued: “An alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting. and failing. to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border.”.
Sotomayor’s dissent took aim at that framework. She argued the law instead requires border agents to process migrants who come to a port of entry. “Since 1917. Congress has required immigration officers to inspect noncitizens who arrive at ports of entry to determine whether they may enter the United States. ” she wrote. “This system is designed to ensure that the Government processes each person seeking to come into the United States to determine who should be let in. who should be turned away. and who should be allowed to apply for asylum.”.
But Sotomayor’s strongest language was reserved for what she said the ruling would mean on the ground. “More people will be forced to walk along the U. S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them,” she said from the bench. “More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves. such as their race. religion. nationality. or political opinion.”.
The majority’s decision ends up narrowing access to asylum claims for people caught in the gap between reaching a port of entry and being allowed to cross. Sotomayor’s dissent argues that the law’s inspection requirement—rooted in Congress’s mandate dating to 1917—was meant to prevent that kind of gap from becoming a tool to push people away without meaningful processing.
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court asylum seekers metering policy U.S.-Mexico border ports of entry Samuel Alito 6-3 ruling immigration officers Congress 1917 asylum rights