Supreme Court lets border officers block asylum seekers

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled asylum seekers can be turned away at the southern border without a hearing. The majority sided with the Trump administration, interpreting the Refugee Act of 1980 to protect people who “arrive in” the United States af

WASHINGTON — For families fleeing persecution, the question of whether a border official has to hear their asylum claim may now hinge on a single word.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that asylum seekers can be turned away at the southern border without a hearing, a sharp retreat from the idea that the law guarantees access to protection once someone reaches an official boundary.

The justices split over whether the dispute was strictly about legal wording or whether it carried a moral weight for people at the edge of survival. The decision sided with the Trump administration.

Conservative justices said the Refugee Act of 1980 gives a right to seek asylum to migrants who “arrive in the United States. ” but does not extend that right to people who are turned back when they approach a border crossing or a port of entry. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. framed it as a straightforward reading: “This case presents a straightforward question” that turns on the word “in.” In ordinary speech. he said. no one would say a person “arrives in” a place before the person enters that place.

The dissent saw something different. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the asylum law was shaped by “international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust and World War II.” She pointed to the 1939 voyage of the MS St. Louis, when more than 900 Jewish refugees attempted to flee Nazi Germany by sailing aboard the ship. The vessel was turned away from Cuba and the United States. most passengers were returned to Europe. and several hundred died in the Holocaust.

Sotomayor wrote that Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want the United States to repeat past mistakes. But she said that if the refugees on the M.S. St. Louis walked up to a port of entry on the southern border today. the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot on U. S. soil.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the dissent.

The ruling did not come in a vacuum. It upholds a turn-back policy that began in 2016 as an emergency response to a surge of Haitian immigrants at the San Ysidro border crossing. The Department of Homeland Security said these asylum seekers must wait on the Mexican side of the border until they could return for a scheduled interview. The policy was extended to other border crossings, but it was challenged as illegal in federal court in San Diego.

Last year. a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the restrictions unlawful when they prevented migrants from applying for asylum. Judge Michelle Friedland wrote: “To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination. ’” and said a person who presents herself to an official at the border has “arrived.” She also warned that the government’s reading would amount to a “radical reconstruction” of the right to apply for asylum. giving the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.

The Supreme Court decision affirmed a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants after they filed a class-action suit and were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling. He noted that 15 judges of the 9th Circuit had joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

The administration argued that federal immigration law does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so they can seek asylum. From abroad. Sauer said. they may “seek admission as refugees. ” but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”.

Defenders of the asylum system denounced the ruling. Erika Pinheiro. executive director of the migrant support organization Al Otro Lado. said: “We believe that today’s ruling violates international law. as well as the express intent of Congress.” She added that for decades. the United States has allowed individuals and families fleeing persecution. torture and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders.

Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, said, “Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system. It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families.”.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform welcomed the outcome. Christopher J. Hajec. deputy general counsel of FAIR. said. “Our immigration laws are written to be pro-enforcement. not-anti-enforcement.” He argued that courts that hamstring enforcement are forced to violate basic logic. and said FAIR was pleased the Supreme Court reversed the reading of the 9th Circuit that he described as making immigration law incoherent.

Supreme Court asylum seekers southern border Refugee Act of 1980 turn-back policy Haitian migrants San Ysidro MS St. Louis international law immigration enforcement