The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the United States, keeping them from applying for asylum.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the United States when they are turned away at the border, they did not "arrive in" the country and the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.
Writing for the liberal dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said border patrol agents speak with all immigrants at legal entry points and that speaking with an agent is effectively the first step in "arriving in" the U.S.
The Trump administration sought to revive the policy, contending the lower court's ruling "deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry."
The Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way, and lower courts had blocked the policy on grounds that it violated federal law by denying asylum to people who otherwise would have qualified for it, had they been permitted to literally put one foot over the border.
Under U.S. law, an asylum seeker who "arrives in" the United States is entitled to apply for asylum and generally cannot be removed from the country until their asylum application is processed.
The decision came in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, in which Alito wrote, "An alien standing in Mexico does not 'arriv[e] in the United States' by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien 'arrives in the United States' only when he crosses the border."
During oral arguments, Alito pressed attorneys for the migrants with an analogy: "Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived in the house?"
The turn-back system, sometimes called metering, was first used by Customs and Border Protection in 2016 at the San Ysidro border crossing as an emergency response to a surge of Haitian immigrants and was later expanded by the first Trump administration, while the policy still allowed people with valid travel documents to enter the country any time. A judge during the Biden administration overturned the policy, and a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled 2-1 that the restrictions were illegal; Judge Michelle Friedland wrote that to "arrive" means "to reach a destination."
Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, arguing that federal immigration law "does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum."
The court also issued a separate ruling that lets the president strip deportation protections from Syrians and Haitians.
James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security's general counsel, said, "We had to go all the way to SCOTUS to vindicate the principle that an alien is not 'in the United States' until he is, in fact, in the United States."
Erika Pinheiro, executive director of the migrant support organization Al Otro Lado, said, "We believe that today's ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress."
Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, said, "Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system. It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families."
Christopher J. Hajec, deputy general counsel of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said, "Our immigration laws are written to be pro-enforcement, not-anti-enforcement. We are pleased the Supreme Court saw that the lower court's reading would make immigration law incoherent, and reversed."