The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration can turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border and that doing so does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Marin v. Al Otro Lado, addressed a now-defunct policy in which immigration agents at official border crossings physically and indefinitely prevent people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil, ignoring the government’s legal responsibility to screen and process asylum seekers. As Justice Sotomayor explained in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, the court’s decision “congratulates the executive branch’s decision to close the door on all people fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum regimes that Congress has enacted and mandated.”
This afternoon, immigrant rights advocates will gather in a virtual media briefing at 3:00 pm ET/12:00 pm PT to discuss this decision.
“We believe that today’s ruling not only violates international law, but also violates the express intent of Congress, which codified the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into U.S. federal law more than 40 years ago. For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families fleeing persecution, torture, and death to seek protection at our borders and exercise their legal right to seek asylum,” said Erika Pinheiro, executive director of Al Otro Lado. “This decision threatens to destroy the United States’ standing as a world leader in promoting refugee rights and provide dangerous justification for other countries to illegally prevent refugees from crossing their borders in search of safety. In a world of increasing conflict and climate disasters, hardening borders to keep out the most vulnerable will surely result in even more lives lost.”
This repatriation policy, euphemistically called “metering” by government officials, violated both international and federal 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 asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. Declaring the policy illegal.
“As explained in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the court’s decision to greenlight the administration’s reinstatement policy is an affront to Congressional authority on an immigration issue with devastating humanitarian consequences,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court president of the Institute for Constitutional Defense and Advocacy, which argued the case. “It is now up to the courts of Congress to enact legislation that will correct the court’s errors and ensure that arriving asylum seekers are not forced back into violent and life-threatening situations.”
The ruling effectively overturns immigration law that for more than a century has required government authorities to screen all people who present themselves at designated ports of entry. And since Congress made asylum into U.S. law more than 45 years ago, mandatory port inspections have ensured that the U.S. government doesn’t send vulnerable people back to dangerous places without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.
“This decision should be a wake-up call for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law,” said Melissa Crowe, director of litigation at the Center for Gender and Refugee Research (CGRS). “The majority opinion in Al Otro Lado suggests that the president could unilaterally override decades of established laws and trample on the legal rights of citizens if it suited his political agenda. For asylum seekers, this policy resulted in outright denial of entry. In some cases, it was a death sentence. Although this decision is a significant blow, our movement will continue to fight to restore asylum as a lifeline for those seeking refuge. We will never change course and stand with those who count on safety and justice in the United States. ”
“My heart goes out to the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, whose rights the United States erased with the stroke of a pen,” said Angelo Guisado, chief counsel at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
“In the year of the United States’ 250th anniversary, the federal executive branch is abdicating its obligations to asylum seekers who fear for their lives and flee dangerous situations, forcing thousands of people, including children, into dangerous and deplorable situations,” said Sarah Rich, senior attorney at Democracy Forward. “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that puts even more people and families at risk. We are disappointed in the court’s decision and call on all Americans to demand that our government protect the families the courts abandoned today. Congress must act to protect not only the lives of asylum seekers, but also America’s best values.”
“Atrocities are no substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from applying for asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system. It will only make the situation more confusing and dangerous for vulnerable families. What we need is a fair, efficient and , an asylum system that is accountable and treats people with dignity. Unfortunately, today’s decision justifies an approach that treats people seeking safety as a problem to be shut out, rather than creating an orderly system that actually works,” said senior Rebecca Casler. Litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council.
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 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.
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.
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.
