Supreme Court agrees to decide legality of Trump's asylum suspension at the southern border

The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the Trump administration can suspend access to asylum for migrants at the US-Mexico border, taking up one of the pillars of the president's hardline immigration crackdown. The justices will review a ruling by a federal appeals court in Washington that struck down the policy as government overreach. The case is expected to be argued in the spring, with the restrictions remaining in force in the meantime because the lower court's ruling has been kept on hold during the appeal.

The case, known as Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, stems from a proclamation President Donald Trump signed on January 20, 2025, declaring that an invasion was ongoing at the southern border and suspending the entry of non-citizens described as engaged in that invasion. Trump also indicated that such non-citizens could no longer seek protections such as asylum that would allow them to remain in the country. The Department of Homeland Security then issued guidance barring any non-citizens from applying for asylum and providing that anyone who entered despite the suspension would be quickly removed without some of the procedural protections set out in law.

Lower courts found the policy unlawful

The challengers are 13 individuals who say they were persecuted or tortured in their home countries, along with three immigration-related nonprofit organizations. They brought a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Washington arguing that both the proclamation and the guidance violate federal immigration law. US District Judge Randolph Moss recognized a class of migrants subject to the proclamation, concluded the guidance was unlawful, threw it out and barred officials from implementing those actions. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later largely upheld that ruling, writing that the text, structure and history of immigration law make clear that Congress did not intend to give the president the expansive removal authority being claimed. One judge dissented in part, arguing the president has discretion to deny all asylum applications but agreeing the government cannot remove people to countries where they would face persecution. The appeals court initially paused part of Moss' order before a different panel later ruled on the merits. Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. Judge Justin Walker partly dissented and agreed that mandatory procedures protecting people from removal to persecution could not be stripped away.

The government and challengers make competing arguments

Asking for Supreme Court review in August, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the border had been overwhelmed and that the president had both inherent and delegated powers to exclude non-citizens. He said the administration could decline to accept asylum applications it intended to deny. He also argued that federal immigration law prevents lower courts from ordering classwide relief of this kind, and challenged a class that included people abroad with no imminent plans to enter the country.

The challengers responded that the president cannot create a new removal system that sets aside protections Congress required. They said border apprehensions had already fallen more than 90 percent from their peak before the January 2025 proclamation. Federal law, they argued, allows non-citizens to apply for asylum regardless of status or how they entered, and does not let the executive remove statutory safeguards against persecution or torture. They also said the limit on lower-court injunctions does not apply because the proclamation relies on different provisions. These remain opposing legal arguments, not a Supreme Court ruling on the merits.

What the justices will decide

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the legality of both the proclamation and the guidance, as well as whether the district judge had the power to issue an order providing such broad relief. It turned down the government's request to also weigh in on whether the group of challengers meets the rules for class actions. The case joins a growing immigration docket at the court, which already includes a challenge to the administration's practice of deporting migrants to countries not named in their removal orders, known as third-party removals, and its policy of detaining migrants apprehended inside the United States without the opportunity for a hearing. The administration has credited the asylum restrictions with helping reduce border crossings.