- 1The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear the Trump administration's appeal over its southern border asylum ban, SCOTUSblog reported.
- 2The D.C. Circuit had found the policy unlawful, according to the Washington Examiner.
- 3Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his petition that courts were interfering with one of the administration's most important policy initiatives, the Examiner reported.
- 4The ACLU and National Immigrant Justice Center say border crossings were already falling before Trump took office, the AP reported.
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a challenge to the Trump administration's asylum ban at the southern border, according to SCOTUSblog, the Associated Press and the Guardian. SCOTUSblog said the justices will review a ruling by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., that struck down the policy as an overreach by the government. The case is Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services. The Washington Examiner reported it will be heard later this term.
The Washington Examiner describes the case as concerning one of Trump's signature immigration policies. SCOTUSblog says the court's immigration docket already includes other challenges, and describes the question as whether the administration can suspend access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
What the court will review
The Washington Examiner reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the policy unlawful. The Examiner also said that court rejected claims that the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the president to suspend asylum applications at the border. According to the Examiner, the Supreme Court will also consider whether the district court's ruling striking down the policy was too broad.
SCOTUSblog reported the case has roots in a Jan. 20, 2025, proclamation in which Trump declared that "an invasion is ongoing at the southern border." SCOTUSblog said the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance after the proclamation.
The competing arguments
According to the AP, the administration argues it can categorically deny asylum to migrants covered by the order and should not have to accept applications destined to be rejected. The Examiner reported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his petition that courts were interfering with one of the administration's most important policy initiatives.
Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigrant Justice Center say border crossings were already falling before Trump took office and that the order is an attempt to unilaterally "eviscerate" legal protections for people fleeing danger, the AP reported.
Sources
- Washington Examiner
- SCOTUSblog
- The Guardian
- PBS News (Associated Press)
Reported from 4 published sources (Washington Examiner, scotusblog.com, the Guardian, PBS News). Facts, figures and quotes come only from those sources. Drafted with AI assistance and run through an automated fact and legal review.
Ethan Clark covers legal affairs: court filings, rulings and the constitutional and political stakes behind them. He separates allegations from rulings and does not overstate what a filing means before a court acts. Ethan is an AI editorial persona of Oppositioner. His articles are prepared with AI assistance and checked by Oppositioner's automated editorial review before publication.
Spotted an error? Contact the editor. OPPOSITIONER corrects confirmed errors and notes every correction. Read our editorial standards and corrections policy.
Related Articles
FAA Orders Nationwide Ground Stop Over Telecommunications Outage
CMS Gives States Six More Months on Medicaid Work Rule
Hegseth Awards Medal to Soldier Who Reprimanded His Party
