Supreme Court sides 6-3 with Trump administration on immigration asylum border policy

A divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a case about the federal government’s power to turn away asylum seekers if they’re still on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border.

This Video Is Trending Right Now →

The case hinged on the interpretation of federal law that says a person can apply for asylum if they are “physically present in the United States” or if the person “arrives in the United States.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion that said someone standing in Mexico doesn’t arrive in the U.S. by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country, and so they arrive in the U.S. only when they cross the border. Alito said that federal law, therefore, does not entitle someone standing in Mexico to apply for asylum and does not require an immigration officer to inspect them.

The court’s three Democratic appointees dissented.

Focusing on the “arrives in” part, the government’s lawyer told the justices at the March hearing that a person can’t “arrive in” the U.S. if they’re “still standing in Mexico. That,” the government said, “should be the end of this case.” A lawyer for immigrants said the government’s reading would render the law “nonsensical” and would keep the U.S. from living up to its ideals and treaty obligations to people fleeing persecution.