The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Trump administration's appeal of lower court rulings that found its asylum ban at the US-Mexico border unlawful, with arguments expected in coming months and a ruling by end of June.
The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider the legality of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on access to asylum at the US-Mexico border, according to reporting by Reuters and the Associated Press.
Trump announced the asylum curbs on January 20, 2025, hours into his second presidential term. Under the policy, migrants caught crossing the southern border illegally are barred from pursuing asylum claims. The prohibition also applies to migrants who arrive at official border crossings and lack certain medical or criminal history information, a requirement that advocates say is often impossible to meet for people fleeing violence.
Immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the policy on behalf of would-be asylum seekers who say they were denied a “credible fear” interview by US immigration officials before facing deportation. Such interviews are meant to determine whether migrants seeking asylum would face persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
A Washington, DC-based federal judge ruled in favor of the immigrant rights groups in July 2025. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in April upheld the judge’s ruling but largely agreed to block the decision from taking effect to let the administration appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration is asking the justices to overturn lower court decisions that found the executive order banning asylum applications illegal. Federal attorneys argue the government can categorically deny asylum to migrants covered by the order and should not have to accept applications destined to be rejected. They say yearslong processing times had previously contributed to a major influx of migrants at the southern border as many were released into the country while awaiting a decision.
Immigration attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigrant Justice Center counter that border crossings were already falling before Trump took office. They say his executive order is an unlawful attempt to unilaterally “eviscerate” legal protections aimed at protecting people fleeing danger in their home countries. They argue asylum decisions are supposed to be made on an individual basis and the law doesn’t allow the president to unilaterally stop people from even applying.
The asylum ban was one of a series of immigration restrictions Trump rolled out upon his return to office in 2025. It has remained in place during the litigation. The justices are expected to hear the case in the coming months and hand down a decision by the end of June.
It is the third major immigration case the high court will hear this term. The justices will also decide whether people can be swiftly deported to countries other than their homelands and if immigrants can be detained indefinitely during deportation proceedings. The justices decided another asylum case in favor of the administration earlier this year, clearing the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive a “metering” policy that has been used to turn back immigrants in years past.
The Supreme Court’s review will determine whether the executive branch can broadly restrict access to asylum applications at the southern border, affecting migrants seeking protection and the scope of presidential authority over immigration policy.
Sources
This article was drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources above. Company claims are reported as claims. Cover image is AI-generated.
The day's checked news, by email
One short email a day with the top stories. Free, and you can unsubscribe in one click.
Or follow for the latest news:
No comments yet. Start the discussion.
Democrat Eileen Laubacher defeated Rep. Lauren Boebert for a Colorado U.S. House seat, according to the Associated Press, with Laubacher leading 48.7% to Boebert's 47.9% after 99% of ballots were counted.
The Trump administration has designated Los Lorenzanas, Los Huistas and Los Mendoza as terrorist groups, imposing sanctions including asset freezes.
