Supreme Court sides with Trump administration’s efforts to curb asylum claims at southern border

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court sided Thursday with the Trump administration’s request to turn away asylum-seekers who present themselves at ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The question the justices considered was whether migrants have to fully cross into the United States in order to have the right to apply for asylum and be processed, or if they can apply for asylum when they appear at a port of entry while on Mexico’s side of the border. 

In a 6-3 decision, the conservative justices agreed with the Trump administration that a noncitizen who is standing in Mexico doesn’t arrive in the U.S. “by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country.” 

The justices held that a noncitizen only arrives in the U.S. “when he crosses the border,” and that the Immigration Nationality Act does not entitle that noncitizen who is standing on Mexico’s side of the border who wants to apply for asylum to be inspected by an immigration officer. 

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority, said the case before the justices presented a “straightforward question.”

“The phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ … carries its ordinary meaning: A person arrives in a geographic location only when he enters it,” he wrote. “A person arrives in a destination when he enters within its area—not before—and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks entry. Everyday examples of how people ordinarily use the phrase ‘arrives in’ confirm this understanding.”

The policy requiring a full crossing, known as metering, is defunct, but Vivek Suri, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued before the high court that it was a policy the federal government should be allowed to have in its toolbox for future uses at the southern border. 

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent saying the ruling will allow the Trump administration to turn away asylum seekers, a policy she said violates Congress’ refugee law.

“Because the Court today blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands, I respectfully dissent,” she wrote. 

During oral arguments in March, the justices seemed ideologically split, with the six conservative justices agreeing with the Trump administration. The three liberals of the Supreme Court — Sotomayor and Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson —  questioned whether the policy violated federal law protecting refugees. 

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.