Thousands of people have been denied the right to seek asylum and forced back into dangerous situations. This case affects refugee rights
WASHINGTON, DC, March 24, 2026 – Immigration advocates today argued before the Supreme Court that the Trump administration’s reversal policy violates federal immigration law. Under this now-defunct policy, immigration officials at official border crossings physically and indefinitely prevented people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil, ignoring their legal responsibility to screen and process asylum seekers.
“For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with international treaty obligations,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court president of the Institute for Constitutional Defense and Advocacy, which argued the case. “However, the current administration believes that Congress has completely ignored these requirements and given Congress the discretion to turn back people fleeing persecution on a whim. There is nothing in the law to support that outcome.”
The turnback policy, euphemistically called “metering” by government officials, broke long-standing practice and violated the law. Thousands were denied the right to seek asylum and were forced to suffer in dangerous conditions in Mexico or return to the dangerous places they had fled.
In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a bilateral organization that provides free legal and humanitarian aid to migrants, and a group of asylum seekers filed a class action lawsuit challenging the policy, and courts ruled that the policy was illegal in both 2022 and 2024. The restitution policy has not been in effect since 2021, but the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. Declaring the policy illegal.
“The right to seek asylum is not a policy priority or a loophole. It is a promise to humanity in its most desperate moments, a promise made after the world witnessed the devastation of the Holocaust and said, ‘Never again.’ Seeking asylum is not like waiting for a number at a deli counter,” said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, director of the Border Rights Project at Al Otro Lado, a plaintiff in the case. “People turned away at the border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. We cannot tell families who are fleeing for their lives to go back and wait in dangerous conditions because suffering is an inconvenience. We brought this case because the United States made a legal and moral promise to protect people fleeing persecution. The question before the court is whether that promise still has meaning or whether it can be broken when it becomes politically uncomfortable.”
For more than a century, our nation’s immigration laws have required government officials to screen asylum seekers who present at designated ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. This is because all noncitizens seeking entry to the United States must be screened. This requirement ensures that the U.S. government does not send vulnerable people back to dangerous locations without giving them the opportunity to seek protection.
“The government’s repatriation policy violated our laws and treaty obligations, added to the chaos and dysfunction at our southern border, and was a complete humanitarian disaster that exposed thousands of vulnerable refugees to serious harm,” said Melissa Crowe, director of litigation at the Center for Gender and Refugee Research (CGRS). “For too many, the policy reversal was a death sentence. We come to the Supreme Court today on their behalf, and on behalf of all those who continue to look to America as a beacon of hope, a safe haven for persecuted people. We will never stop fighting for the rights of those seeking safety on our nation’s doorstep.”
“We hope the court will reject the administration’s cynical attempts to manipulate the meaning of borders in order to circumvent the most basic protections of international law and continue to expel vulnerable asylum seekers,” said Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Our humanitarian treaty obligations, forged from the horrors of World War II, are too important to be subject to the whims of CBP.”
“President Trump’s efforts to abandon asylum seekers who have fled dangerous situations in fear for their lives is an illegal overreach that puts thousands of people, including children, in dire situations at risk,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “Democracy Forward is proud to work with these brave plaintiffs and our partners to protect the rights of people seeking asylum.”
“The Trump administration’s illegal repatriation policy ignores both U.S. and international law, while creating massive dysfunction at our southern border,” said Rebecca Casler, senior litigation attorney at the U.S. Immigration Council. “But most importantly, we cannot forget the people at the center of this case – the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers who were sent back to dangerous places and in some cases to their deaths. They deserve justice above all.”
Click here for a recording of the press conference regarding the Supreme Court’s response after the argument.
See here for a recording of the interfaith vigil held outside the courthouse early this morning.
For more information about this incident, please visit the campaign website No Turning Back.
###
Al Otro Lado provides comprehensive legal and humanitarian assistance to refugees, deportees, and other immigrants in the United States and Tijuana through an interdisciplinary, client-centered, harm reduction-based practice. They work to impact individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical and legal partnerships, and litigation to protect the rights of migrants and asylum-seekers.
The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks and acts about immigrants and immigrants, working toward a fairer and more just immigration system that opens doors to people in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers to drive change through four coordinated approaches: litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications.
The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies champions the human rights of courageous refugees seeking asylum in the United States. With strategic focus and unparalleled legal expertise, CGRS defends the most difficult cases, fights for due process, and advances policies that provide safety and justice for refugees.
The Center for Constitutional Rights works with threatened communities to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequality, and government overreach.
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement.
The Institute for Constitutional Defense and Advocacy is a nonpartisan public interest organization affiliated with Georgetown Law. ICAP works in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect democratic processes.
