Blow to Asylum Rights, SCOTUS Allows Trump Admin to Block Asylum Seekers at Border

AHRC Press -June 25, 2026

Plaintiffs and their attorneys respond to ruling; under the challenged policy, thousands were denied right to seek asylum and sent back to danger

June 25, 2026, Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration could turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, and that doing so does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, addressed a now-defunct policy, under which immigration officers at official border crossings physically and indefinitely blocked people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil, flouting the government’s legal responsibility to inspect and process those seeking asylum. As Justice Sotomayor explained in a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, the Court’s decision “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands.”

“We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress, which enshrined the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into U.S. federal law over 40 years ago. For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture, and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders and exercise their legal right to seek asylum,” said Erika Pinheiro, Al Otro Lado’s Executive Director. “This decision has destroyed the United States’ position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety. In a world of increasing conflict and climate disaster, this hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable is sure to result in many more lives lost.”

The turnback policy, euphemistically dubbed “metering” by government officials, broke with both international and federal asylum law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to languish in hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the peril they had fled.

In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization that provides free legal and humanitarian assistance to migrants, and a group of asylum seekers brought a class action suit challenging the policy, which the courts ruled unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the policy unlawful. 

“As explained by Justice Sotomayor's dissent, the Court's decision to greenlight the government's turnback policy is an affront to congressional authority over immigration matters with devastating humanitarian consequences,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. “The ball is now in Congress's court to enact legislation correcting the Court's error and ensuring that arriving asylum seekers are not forced back to violent and life-threatening situations.” 

The ruling effectively overturns immigration laws that, for more than a century, have required government officials to inspect all people presenting themselves at designated ports of entry. And since Congress enacted asylum into U.S. law more than 45 years ago, the port inspection requirement has ensured that the U.S. government does not send vulnerable people back to danger without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.

“This ruling should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “The majority opinion in Al Otro Lado suggests the president may unilaterally override decades of established law and trample on people's legal rights if doing so suits his political agenda. The turnback policy did not merely delay entry for people seeking safety. For far too many asylum seekers, the policy denied entry entirely. In some cases, that became a death sentence. While this decision is a significant blow, our movement will keep fighting to restore asylum as a lifeline for people seeking refuge. We will never turn our backs on those who look to the United States for safety and justice.”

“My heart is with the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers across the U.S.-Mexico border whose rights the U.S. has erased with the stroke of a pen,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Angelo Guisado.  

“On the 250th anniversary year of the United States, our federal executive branch is abandoning its obligations to asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances in fear for their lives and putting thousands of people – including children – in dangerous and dire situations,” said Sarah Rich, Senior Attorney at Democracy Forward. “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will put even more people and families in harm’s way. We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and call on all Americans to demand that our government protect the families the Court abandoned today. Congress should act to protect not only the lives of asylum seekers, but also the best of American values.”

“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system; it only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families. What we need is an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats people with dignity. Unfortunately, today’s decision validates an approach that treats people seeking safety as a problem to shut out instead of creating an orderly system that actually works,” said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council. 

----- Melanie Nathan, Executive Director of the African Human Rights Coalition (AHRC), said:

"Today's decision is particularly devastating for LGBTQI+ asylum seekers, many of whom flee countries where they face imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, arbitrary detention, extortion, family rejection, and even death simply because of who they are or whom they love. Unlike many other refugees, LGBTQI+ people are often unable to seek protection in neighboring countries, where the same criminal laws, social hostility, and transnational networks of persecution frequently exist. Many have traversed continents in the most dangerous of conditions, reorting the deaths of others, sexual violence and extraordinary hardship in making thei desperate journeys. Turning people away at ports of entry does not merely delay their access to asylum, it can force them back into the hands of those from whom they fled, or leave them stranded in countries where they remain vulnerable to targeted violence, exploitation, and refoulement. The United States has long served as a beacon of hope for those persecuted because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics. Closing that door undermines both our legal obligations and our moral commitment to protect some of the world's most vulnerable people."

For more about the case, see the campaign website, No Turning Back.