Supreme Court rules asylum seekers can be turned back at US border

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 25 said the federal government may systematically turn back asylum seekers along the U.S. border with Mexico, a previous migrant management practice that the Trump administration may want to bring back.

In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said federal law doesn't require the government to consider an asylum claim from a migrant who has reached a port of entry but has been barred from setting foot on U.S. soil.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said everyday examples of how people use the word "arrive" confirm that someone arrives in a destination when that person enters within its area. He said that should apply to migrants who want to claim asylum by arriving in the United States, but who haven't actually crossed into the country.

"A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line. A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door," Alito wrote.

In a rare exchange after summarizing his decision, Alito took issue with Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that she read from the bench to emphasize her opposition.

She said that as a result of the majority's decision, "more people will die."

Alito, in part of his response, pointed out that the policy was not unique to the Trump administration.

Limiting the number of people who can claim asylum each day, a policy often called "metering," was used by Democrats and Republicans before being rescinded by the Biden administration.

The Trump administration − which already has a sweeping ban on asylum at the border that is facing a different legal challenge − wanted to keep metering as an option, calling the policy a "critical tool for addressing border surges."

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that the government is required to process a claim once someone reaches a port of entry.

After the decision, White House adviser Stephen Miller called asylum applications at the border "fake," saying they're not based on legitimate claims of facing persecution in a home country. Asylum claims, once vetted, are recognized by countries around the world and the United Nations.

"America's doors are closed, fully, to asylum seekers," Miller said.

In a dissent that the other two liberal justices also signed onto, Sotomayor wrote that her conservative colleagues' interpretation of the phrase "arrives in" doesn't make sense when it comes to asylum.

Sotomayor compared the situation to a movie theater policy that says anyone who "arrives in" the theater may buy a ticket, and all tickets must be scanned before entering.

"If a person walks up to a ticket booth located just outside the theater, it would be unreasonable to think they could not buy a ticket under the policy because they are not 'in' the theater yet," Sotomayor wrote.

"Perhaps the policy could have been clearer by using the preposition 'at,' but everyone understands, from context, what the policy means," she added.

Erika Pinheiro, executive director of the immigrant rights group Al Otro Lado, said the court's ruling violates international law and is contrary to what Congress intended.

"This decision has destroyed the United States' position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety," Pinheiro said in a statement.

Policy was challenged by asylum seekers

Thirteen asylum seekers and Al Otro Lado challenged the metering practice in 2017 on behalf of migrants who were turned back to Mexico.

"Vulnerable families, children, and adults fleeing persecution were stranded in perilous conditions where they faced violent assault, kidnapping, and death," their lawyers said last year when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado.

They argued the government has improperly limited the number of asylum seekers even when there's sufficient staffing and other resources to deal with them.

In a 2020 report, internal watchdogs at the Homeland Security Department said that, regardless of a port's actual capacity and capability, border patrol agents at some crossings routinely told migrants they weren't able to process them.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has said it needs flexibility to manage its varied agenda, which includes stopping drug trafficking and facilitating lawful trade and travel.

Lower court sided with asylum seekers

To be granted asylum – a process that can take years – an applicant must demonstrate they have faced persecution based on one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

The 1986 Immigration and Nationality Act allows anyone "who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States" to apply for asylum.

In 2024, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the term "arrives in" includes "those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are standing on."

The Justice Department says that interpretation defies the plain text of the law.

"You can't arrive in the United States while you're still standing in Mexico," Vivek Suri, an attorney for the Justice Department, told the Supreme Court during oral arguments in March. "That should be the end of this case."

Border policy used in past administrations

The practice of not letting an asylum seeker pass through a checkpoint was used periodically during the Obama administration, when border officers began turning away hundreds of Haitian asylum seekers at ports of entry in California.

Customs and Border Protection officers could stop undocumented migrants from physically setting foot on U.S. soil whenever they considered a border crossing too busy.

The policy was formalized during the first Trump administration, and the Biden administration lifted the policy but allowed exceptions.

As a result, immigrant rights groups say, asylum seekers lived for months in makeshift camps on the Mexico side of the border without reliable food, shelter or safety.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court rules asylum seekers can be turned back at US border

Reporting by Maureen Groppe and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

Copyright Reuters or USA Today Network via Reuters Connect

This story was originally published June 25, 2026 at 7:03 PM.