Supreme Court Supports Asylum Policy Enforcement at U.S.-Mexico Border
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s directive to turn back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border. In a 6-3 ruling on Marin v. Al Otro Lado, the justices affirmed the position taken by the Trump administration, stating that the policy, which emerged a decade ago in response to a surge of Haitian asylum seekers in the San Diego area, complies with federal law allowing noncitizens to apply for asylum upon their entry into the United States.
Majority Opinion Highlights Interpretations of ‘Arrival’
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, asserted that the question before the court was straightforward. He emphasized that under common understanding, no one would claim to have ‘arrived’ at a destination until they have physically entered it. The justifications provided in immigration law concerning the phrase ‘arriving in the United States’ support this conventional interpretation.
Dissenting Justices Warn of Predictable Consequences
In a strong dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed grave concerns about the implications of the ruling. They warned that the decision would likely result in increased fatalities among those attempting to cross the border illegally, along with a higher number of individuals succeeding in crossing while many others remain unable to do so.
Understanding the ‘Metering’ Policy
The metering policy at the center of this case allows Customs and Border Protection officials to turn away individuals without valid travel documents, including asylum seekers, prior to their official entry into the United States. This policy was formalized through a memorandum of understanding in 2018, outlining a framework for handling the increased influx of asylum seekers at the southern border.
Challengers’ Arguments and Legal Background
The plaintiffs, Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights organization, and 13 asylum seekers, contended that individuals turned away at ports of entry should be considered to have ‘arrived’ in the U.S. for purposes of applying for asylum. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially agreed, asserting that these noncitizens qualify as having ‘arrived’ despite being denied entry.
Supreme Court Reversal on Previous Ruling
In its ruling, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, with Justice Alito clarifying the significance of the phrase ‘arrive in the United States’ based on common language usage. He cited several major dictionaries, asserting that one truly arrives at a location only upon entering its territory, rejecting the argument that ‘arrival’ could occur prior to actual entry, especially when obstructed from doing so.
Legal Ramifications and International Obligations
Justice Alito also addressed concerns regarding international treaty obligations and the 1980 Refugee Act, arguing that these laws do not create an automatic right for individuals to enter the U.S. at any time. He maintained that the metering policy does not constitute a permanent ban on asylum applications but serves to delay entry, mitigating the risks associated with illegal crossings.
The Dissent’s Broader Implications
Justice Sotomayor voiced that the court’s majority interpretation fosters dangerous incentives for asylum seekers to enter the U.S. illegally. She pointed out that the Refugee Act was enacted to prevent the country from repeating historical injustices against individuals fleeing persecution. The ruling, she argued, could result in asylum seekers being denied the opportunity to file applications simply because they were prevented from physically entering America.
Discussion on Case Impact and the Future of ‘Metering’
In an unusual move, Justice Alito briefly responded to Sotomayor’s dissent, indicating that he could have provided more context during his oral summary had he anticipated the extent of her remarks. He reinforced that the metering policy was initiated under both the Obama and Trump administrations to manage the asylum-seeker influx in a systematic manner. Additionally, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a brief dissent, arguing that the court should not have revisited a policy that had already been rescinded in 2021, highlighting a lack of factual records on how metering operates.
