The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration has the authority to deny entry to migrants who appear at the U.S.-Mexico border before they have formally applied for asylum. This decision represents a major victory for the administration's immigration policies.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated, "In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place." He further noted that the context of the immigration statutes in question supports this interpretation, along with the legal presumption against extraterritorial application of laws.
The ruling, which was decided in a 6-3 vote, means that migrants who reach the U.S.-Mexico border but do not physically enter American territory are not automatically considered asylum seekers and can be turned away. This decision also affects the temporary protected status for thousands of Syrian and Haitian migrants.
Three justices appointed by Democratic administrations dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered her dissent from the bench, a rare occurrence.
This ruling impacts individuals who arrive at the border seeking to claim asylum but have not yet been processed as being physically present within the United States. The court's interpretation focuses on the definition of "arrival" in the context of immigration law.