Federal Appeals Court and Supreme Court Issue Contrasting Rulings on Asylum Policy at Southern Border

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump's proclamation barring migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border from seeking asylum is unlawful. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that individuals stopped before physically entering the country are not considered to have "arrived in" the United States under federal law, and thus have no legal right to apply for asylum.

These two rulings address different aspects of asylum policy at the southern border, with distinct legal implications.

Federal Appeals Court Ruling on Asylum Proclamation

Decision

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 decision on Friday rejecting President Trump's attempt to bar migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border from seeking asylum. The ruling upheld a lower court's decision.

Legal Basis

The court found that the presidential proclamation and related federal rules conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which grants asylum rights to individuals physically present in the United States.

Judicial Opinions

• Majority Opinion: Judge Michelle Childs, appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote the majority opinion. She was joined by Judge Nina Pillard, appointed by former President Barack Obama. The opinion stated that the INA does not authorize the president to summarily remove migrants or suspend asylum applications.

• Partial Dissent: Judge Justin Walker, appointed by President Trump, partially dissented. He argued that while the president cannot deport migrants to countries where they would face persecution, broad denials of asylum applications are permissible. He also argued migrants could seek other protections but not asylum.

Procedural Status

The administration may ask the full D.C. Circuit for reconsideration or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The order does not take effect until the court considers any request for rehearing.

Origin of Case

The case originated from a proclamation issued by President Trump on his first day back in office. The proclamation declared a state of invasion at the southern border and aimed to end asylum processing. Administration officials had cited the proclamation as a factor in declining unlawful crossings along the southern border.

Previous Ruling

In July 2024, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled the policy unlawful, stating the president cannot create an alternative immigration system that supplants congressional statutes. Friday's appeals court decision affirms that ruling.

Statements from Involved Parties

• Lee Gelernt (American Civil Liberties Union attorney, representing migrants): Stated that the decision “will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration’s horrific asylum ban.”

• White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt: Characterized the ruling as "unsurprising" and attributed it to politically motivated judges.

• White House Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson: Stated that the Department of Justice would seek further review.

• Department of Homeland Security: Expressed strong disagreement with the ruling.

• Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (American Immigration Council): Noted that previous legal actions had already paused the asylum ban, so the ruling may not change conditions on the ground significantly.

• Nicolas Palazzo (Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center): Said the ruling affirms that presidential actions cannot supplant the rule of law.

• Josue Martinez (psychologist at a migrant shelter in Mexico): Expressed cautious hope but noted past temporary holds that were later overturned.

Supreme Court Ruling on 'Arrives In' Definition

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the U.S. government may deny asylum to individuals who are stopped before physically entering the country, even if they are at a legal port of entry. The decision interprets the phrase "arrives in" in federal law to exclude those who have not set foot on U.S. soil.

Majority Opinion

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. The opinion stated that the "metering" policy, which turned away asylum-seekers at ports of entry citing capacity limits, is legal. The opinion noted: "The wisdom of the policy of metering alien arrivals at the southern border is not before us. We decide only that an alien standing in Mexico does not 'arriv[e] in the United States.'"

The majority opinion concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 neither entitles such aliens to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect them.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, argued that speaking with a border patrol agent at an entry point constitutes the first step of "arriving in" the U.S.

Policy Background

The "metering" policy began under President Barack Obama and was expanded under President Donald Trump. It allowed federal agents at the border to turn back asylum seekers before they physically entered U.S. soil. The policy was rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021. The Trump administration has indicated it may revive the policy if border conditions warrant, separate from other asylum restrictions announced.

Case History

• The case was originally Noem v. Al Otro Lado and later renamed Mullin v. Al Otro Lado after the confirmation of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.
• The legal challenge to the metering policy was initiated in 2017 by the immigrant advocacy group Al Otro Lado.
• A federal judge in California initially ruled the policy unlawful, a decision affirmed by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024.

Statements from Involved Parties

• Humanitarian group HIAS: Stated in an amicus brief that the policy "flouts the law Congress enacted and wrongly turns back the clock to a period when people fleeing persecution were forced to face arbitrary procedures, crushing uncertainty, and prolonged sojourns in dangerous conditions."

Oral Arguments

During oral arguments, the core legal debate centered on the precise definition of "arrives in" within federal immigration law. Justices questioned when an individual is considered to have "arrived," including scenarios such as being in line at a port of entry, crossing a river, or scaling a border wall.

• Kelsi Corkran (attorney for Al Otro Lado, representing migrants challenging the policy): Argued that a person "arrives in the United States at a port of entry when they are at the threshold of the port's entrance – about to step over."

• Vivek Suri (Assistant Solicitor General, arguing for the Trump administration): Contended that an individual has not arrived in the United States while still in Mexico and described the policy as an "important tool" for managing border surges. He cited a 1990s case involving Haitian asylum seekers intercepted at sea as precedent.

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Questioned the definition of "arrived," asking how close one must be to the border or what constitutes arrival if not physical crossing.

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Drew comparisons to the 1939 MS St. Louis incident and analogized to air travelers "arriving" in the US before physically stepping off a plane.

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Questioned whether a live controversy exists, given that the current administration does not have concrete plans to reinstate the policy.

Comparison of Rulings

The appeals court ruling on the asylum proclamation concerns the president's authority to suspend asylum processing entirely. The Supreme Court ruling on the "arrives in" definition concerns the narrower question of whether individuals who have not physically entered the country have a statutory right to apply for asylum. The two rulings address different legal questions and different executive actions.