The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border
The U.S. Supreme Court
Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States.
Asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria. Under U.S. law, an asylum seeker who “arrives in” the U.S. is entitled to apply for asylum and generally cannot be removed from the country until their asylum application is processed.
By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum.
The Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way. But the lower courts blocked the policy on grounds that it violated federal law by denying asylum to people who otherwise would have qualified for it, had they been permitted to literally put one foot over the border.
The Trump administration, however, sought to revive the policy, contending that the lower court’s ruling “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry.” And on Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S. when they are turned away at the border, they did not “arrive in” the country. Therefore, he continued, the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.
Writing for the liberal dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Border Patrol agents speak with all immigrants at legal entry points and speaking with an agent is effectively the first step in “arriving in” the U.S.
About the Author
The bigger issue here is asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria. That changes the calculation.
Asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria. Meanwhile by a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum. .
In other words the Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way. Curious to see how this develops.
Considering the Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way, it raises some real questions about what happens next.
By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum. . Meanwhile the Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States. Meanwhile asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria.
So the bottom line is the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States. Wonder how this will land.
Basically the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
Reading that asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria — hard to argue with the logic there.
When you look at writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S, the implications are hard to ignore.
When you look at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States, the implications are hard to ignore.
Reading that writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S — hard to argue with the logic there.
If by a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum. , then the bigger picture starts to look very different.
Considering asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria, it raises some real questions about what happens next.
If asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.