The Supreme Court has ruled that migrants must physically set foot in the United States to be eligible for asylum, reversing lower court decisions that had allowed certain asylum seekers to apply even if turned away at ports of entry. The 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, affirmed the Trump administration's authority to restrict asylum claims.
In the majority opinion, Alito stated that the concern that this ruling would incentivize illegal crossings is "overstated." He argued that illegal entry carries significant risks and legal consequences, such as ineligibility for asylum if an alien unlawfully re-enters the country after removal. "Metering does not permanently bar any alien from arriving in the United States and then applying for asylum," Alito wrote. "Illegal entry, on the other hand, may be expensive and dangerous, and it carries adverse legal effects."
However, the three dissenting justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the decision could lead to unintended consequences. Sotomayor wrote that the ruling "tells asylum seekers that they may apply for asylum if they can make it across the border illegally but that they cannot apply if they patiently wait at the edge of a port of entry." Al Otro Lado, an immigration nonprofit involved in the case, echoed this concern, stating in a court filing that restricting asylum access would "create a perverse incentive to cross the border between ports of entry."
Sotomayor cited a 2018 report from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General, which found that metering practices had previously led "some aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the border illegally." The report's findings are comparable to the new legal standard established by the Supreme Court, as the conditions predated lower courts' rulings that allowed asylum applications from individuals turned away at ports.
The Department of Homeland Security, which celebrated the ruling, did not respond to a request for comment regarding preparations for a potential increase in illegal border crossings. Immigration hawks, however, expressed confidence in border security measures.
Matt Crapo, director of litigation at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told Fox News Digital, "This administration has demonstrated that the border can be secured against illegal entries. As border wall construction continues, the ability to deter illegal crossings will only improve." Migrants seen walking toward the southern border in Tijuana, Mexico, and an image of a courtroom in Concord Immigration Court.