The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether President Donald Trump can bar migrants who cross the southern border illegally from seeking asylum, taking up one of the most consequential immigration cases of his second term. The justices will review lower court rulings that found the president exceeded his authority, with a decision expected by the end of June 2027.
 |
| The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. The justices agreed on Friday to review President Donald Trump's restrictions on asylum at the southern border. |
The case, Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, centers on a proclamation Trump signed within hours of returning to the White House on January 20, 2025. Declaring that an "invasion" was underway at the U.S.-Mexico border, the president suspended entry for certain migrants and directed immigration officials to deny them access to asylum and other protections while using expedited procedures to remove them from the country.
The administration has called the policy the "most important and effective" piece of its efforts to secure the southern border, which it describes as one of the president's top initiatives. Federal immigration law, however, allows anyone in the country or at an official port of entry to apply for asylum, and immigrant rights groups say the ban eviscerates protections Congress created for people fleeing dangerous situations.
The court's decision to hear the case adds yet another dispute over a Trump immigration policy to a docket already crowded with them. The justices, who hold a 6-3 conservative majority, have been largely deferential to the president in his second term in challenges to his immigration policies. But this case asks them to weigh the scope of presidential power against a statute Congress wrote, and the answer will shape asylum law for years.
How the Case Reached the Court
The legal fight began almost as soon as the proclamation was issued. Immigrant rights groups and individual migrants sued, arguing that the president had replaced the immigration procedures established by Congress with a blanket ban of his own.
A federal judge in Washington, Randolph Moss, ruled against the administration last year, finding that the proclamation exceeded presidential authority by replacing immigration procedures established by Congress. In April 2026, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that ruling, concluding that the administration had unlawfully restricted access to asylum and created removal procedures outside the federal immigration system.
The appeals court allowed the asylum restrictions to remain in effect while the case continued, so the ban has been operating throughout the litigation. The administration filed its petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case in late August 2026, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that the president has broad authority to bar entry under federal immigration laws and constitutional powers.
The justices agreed to review two questions in the case. First, whether the proclamation and its enforcement procedures violate federal immigration law. Second, whether federal judges can grant relief covering an entire class of migrants affected by the restrictions, rather than limiting relief to the individual plaintiffs who sued.
 |
| A section of the border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Trump administration says its asylum restrictions have sharply reduced border apprehensions. |
What the Administration Argues
The Justice Department has told the Supreme Court that presidents have inherent authority to secure the border and protect national security. Because the decision of whether to grant asylum is up to the government, the department argues, the president can also broadly decide that anyone who illegally crosses the border is not eligible for asylum.
The administration points to results. According to the government, the policy has dramatically reduced the number of migrants apprehended at the border, by 93 percent. The White House has presented the drop as proof that the ban works and as a central achievement of its border strategy.
The administration also argues that the asylum system itself created an incentive for migrants to come to the United States. Processing an asylum request can take years, and many migrants have been allowed to remain in the country in the meantime, even if they know their claims will eventually be rejected, the government says. Shutting off access at the border, in this view, removes that incentive.
What the Challengers Argue
The immigrant rights groups challenging the policy, including the American Civil Liberties Union and allied organizations, argue that the ban violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. They say Congress created a clear right to seek asylum for people in the United States, and the president cannot erase that right by proclamation.
"The plaintiffs in this case fled persecution and torture, including political imprisonment and threats from the Taliban. Yet, the Trump administration refused to honor its obligation to consider them for asylum," said Keren Zwick, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center.
The challengers also dispute the administration's account of the border numbers. They told the Supreme Court that border apprehensions were already down more than 90 percent from their peak before the policy took effect, undercutting the claim that the ban alone produced the decline.
"If the Executive Branch nonetheless believes it needs new tools to manage the border," lawyers for the groups told the Supreme Court, "Congress must provide them."
A Docket Full of Immigration Cases
The asylum dispute does not arrive at the court in isolation. It joins a series of immigration cases the justices will hear this term, each testing a different piece of the president's crackdown.
The court will decide whether the administration can detain millions of immigrants without giving them a chance to seek bond. It will also decide whether the administration can deport immigrants to countries other than their own without letting them argue that they could be persecuted or tortured there. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments in that separate case on December 9.
The court's recent record suggests the administration will find a sympathetic audience. Last June, the court said the federal government may systematically turn back asylum seekers before they cross ports of entry along the U.S. border with Mexico, a practice the Trump administration may want to bring back. The court also allowed the administration to end deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians, giving it a freer hand to curtail a humanitarian program that has allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants from dangerous countries to temporarily live and work in the United States.
What This Means
The ruling in this case will settle a question that has been open since the first day of Trump's second term: how much power does a president have to shut down asylum at the border on his own authority?
If the court sides with the administration, the ban will stand as settled law, giving this president and future ones a powerful tool to restrict asylum access by proclamation. It would also validate the administration's broader claim that border security is an area where presidential authority runs wide, with consequences for other immigration policies now in litigation.
If the court sides with the challengers, the administration would have to return to Congress for the authority it says it needs, or find another legal basis for restricting asylum. The practical effect would be significant: migrants crossing the border illegally would regain the right to apply for asylum, and the government would have to process those claims through the system Congress designed, however long that takes.
The case also tests the court's appetite for class-wide relief in immigration cases. The justices' answer to the second question, about whether federal judges can grant relief covering an entire class of migrants, could affect how immigration challenges are litigated well beyond this dispute.
 |
| A U.S. Border Patrol agent walks with migrants near a fence at the U.S.-Mexico border. (File photo) |
What Happens Next
The court is expected to hear arguments in the asylum case in the coming months, with a decision anticipated by the end of June 2027. The schedule means the ban will remain in effect through the winter and spring while the case is pending, continuing to shape who can seek protection at the southern border.
Before arguments, both sides will file briefs laying out their positions in detail, and outside groups are expected to weigh in with friend-of-the-court filings. The December 9 arguments in the separate third-country deportation case will give an early signal of how the justices are thinking about the administration's immigration agenda this term.
For now, the border remains closed to asylum seekers who cross illegally, and the migrants at the center of the case wait for a ruling that will decide whether the protections Congress wrote for people fleeing persecution still apply to them.
Post a Comment