Supreme Court Poised to Allow Trump to Turn Away Asylum Seekers at Border

Justices signal support for administration's policy of blocking asylum claims at ports of entry.

Mar. 25, 2026 at 4:30am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Supreme Court appears poised to allow the Trump administration to turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, reversing a lower court ruling that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties. A majority of the court's conservative justices signaled during oral arguments that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection.

Why it matters

This case could have major implications for the rights of asylum seekers, as a ruling in favor of the administration could give it more leeway to restrict access to the asylum process at the border. The dispute centers on competing interpretations of what it means to 'arrive in' the country under immigration law.

The details

The administration argues that asylum seekers who have not yet crossed the physical border cannot be considered to have 'arrived in' the U.S. and therefore do not have the right to file an asylum claim. Immigrant advocates counter that the law includes those who have 'reached the threshold' of America. The court's liberal justices were critical of the administration's interpretation, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning why Congress would intend to discard asylum requests from those who approach the border but do not cross it.

  • The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 24, 2026.
  • The court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration's bid to resurrect the 'metering' and 'turn back' policy by the end of June 2026.

The players

Donald Trump

The former president whose administration is seeking to reinstate a policy of turning away asylum seekers at the border.

Kelsi Corkran

An attorney supporting asylum seekers in the case, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows those who have 'reached the threshold' of America to apply for asylum.

Vivek Suri

Assistant Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration that asylum seekers who have not crossed the physical border cannot be considered to have 'arrived in' the U.S.

Melissa Crow

Director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing asylum-seeker plaintiffs in the case.

Nicole Ramos

Border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“You can't 'arrive in' the U.S. while you're still standing in Mexico. It is entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections.”

— Vivek Suri, Assistant Solicitor General

“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right. The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”

— Nicole Ramos, Border rights project director, Al Otro Lado

“I was partially tortured, had a lot of lesions, and emotional harm, and traumas and I'm still healing from that. I knew I could apply for asylum in that moment, on the side of Mexico, and so I did everything correctly. I came close; I told the [U.S.] immigration agents that I needed to apply for asylum because I was scared and thought I would be killed. I had scars on my body, on my face, and my head, but they said to me that they couldn't help me, couldn't accept me.”

— Benito

What’s next

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration's bid to resurrect the 'metering' and 'turn back' policy by the end of June 2026.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing legal and moral debate over the rights of asylum seekers at the U.S. border, with the Supreme Court poised to potentially grant the Trump administration broad authority to restrict access to the asylum process. The outcome could have significant consequences for vulnerable individuals fleeing violence and persecution.