WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a case that could significantly reshape the landscape of asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border, potentially limiting the ability of migrants to seek protection in the United States. The central question before the justices is whether individuals must physically enter the U.S. To be eligible for asylum, or if presenting themselves at a port of entry is sufficient. The case, Garland v. Aleman, stems from a challenge to the Biden administration’s implementation of a policy that, like those of its predecessors, effectively limits asylum access at land borders.
The dispute centers on the interpretation of the phrase “arrive in the United States” as it appears in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Biden administration argues that this phrase requires a migrant to enter the country before they can apply for asylum, allowing the government to manage the flow of people at the border and prevent surges. This position echoes arguments made by the Trump administration, which initially implemented policies restricting asylum access, often referred to as “metering,” that required migrants to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed.
The case’s roots trace back to a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups challenging the metering policy. A federal judge in San Diego ruled in favor of the migrants, finding that they had a right to claim asylum when presenting themselves at the border. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in 2024, stating that “to ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” and that presenting oneself to officials at the border constitutes arrival. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
A Historical Parallel and the Refugee Act
The legal debate over the meaning of “arrive” is not merely a technical one. During oral arguments, the administration’s lawyer, Vivek Suri, acknowledged the historical context of asylum law, which arose in response to the atrocities of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. However, immigration rights advocates argue that restricting asylum access at the border runs counter to the spirit of those protections. The MS St. Louis, a ship carrying over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in 1939, was infamously turned away by Cuba and the United States, leading to the deaths of at least 250 passengers in the Holocaust as detailed in historical accounts.
The Refugee Act of 1980, which codified U.S. Asylum law, states that noncitizens “physically present in the United States” or “at a land border or port of entry” may apply for asylum according to the text of the act. Advocates contend that the government’s interpretation would effectively nullify the provision allowing those “at a land border or port of entry” to seek protection.
Justices Express Uncertainty and Concerns
The justices appeared divided during Tuesday’s arguments. Several, including conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, questioned the logic of a rule that would incentivize migrants to cross the border illegally rather than present themselves at official ports of entry. “Why would Congress do that?” Kavanaugh asked, adding that the government’s interpretation “privileges someone who illegally enters over someone who legally comes close to the border.”
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about the practical impact of a ruling, noting that the “remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed, is not currently being enforced. Jackson questioned whether the court should weigh in on a hypothetical scenario, asking, “Your reading of the statute suggests Congress was authorizing asylum by requiring people to break the law in order to obtain it.”
Suri responded that the government’s “metering” policy, which limits the number of asylum seekers processed each day, is a response to surges at the border and is not intended to deny access to asylum altogether. He argued that the policy simply manages the flow of people, stating, “It’s saying our port is at capacity today. Try again some other day.”
The Broader Implications for Asylum Seekers
The case highlights the ongoing tension between the government’s desire to control its borders and its legal and moral obligations to protect those fleeing persecution. Immigration rights groups argue that restricting asylum access at the border will push vulnerable individuals into the hands of smugglers and increase the risks they face. Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, the plaintiff in the case, stated, “The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to head back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient.”
Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, emphasized the long-standing commitment to asylum in the U.S. “For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations,” she said. “Yet this administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim.”
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for thousands of asylum seekers who attempt to enter the U.S. Each year. A ruling in favor of the government would likely lead to further restrictions on asylum access at the border, while a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would reaffirm the right of migrants to seek protection when they present themselves at a port of entry.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in Garland v. Aleman by the end of June 2024. The court’s ruling will likely shape the debate over immigration policy for years to come and will have a significant impact on the lives of those seeking refuge in the United States.
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Disclaimer: This article provides information about a legal case and should not be considered legal advice. If you are seeking legal assistance, please consult with a qualified attorney.
If you or someone you recognize is experiencing a mental health crisis, please contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988 in the US and Canada, or dialing 111 in the UK. These services are available 24/7, free, and confidential.
Have a comment or a question about this story? Share your thoughts here.
