Supreme court lets Trump turn back asylum seekers at US-Mexico border

Hundreds of asylum seekers who used a CBP phone app to make an appointment, are led to their interviews with US customs agents at the San Ysidro border crossing on 25 April 2024. Photograph: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Hundreds of asylum seekers who used a CBP phone app to make an appointment, are led to their interviews with US customs agents at the San Ysidro border crossing on 25 April 2024. Photograph: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Supreme court lets Trump turn back asylum seekers at US-Mexico border Decision allows Trump administration to block migrants from entering US soil and the right to claim asylum Sign up for the Breaking News US newsletter email The supreme court has given the Trump administration a green light to turn back asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border, in a decision that fundamentally reshapes the US asylum system. The Trump administration has sought for years to block migrants from setting foot on US soil, where federal law guarantees them the right to claim asylum and protection from persecution. The ruling will allow that practice to resume, concluding a battle that has spanned three administrations. The vote was 6-3, with justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett concurring. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor all dissented, with the latter penning a biting 35-page long dissent – notably almost twice as long as the Alito majority opinion. In Alito’s opinion, he wrote: “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place ... before the person enters that place.” Sotomayor pushed back strongly in her dissent, explaining the dire consequences of the decision, noting that the government may now circumvent a vast range of laws protecting asylum-seekers by simply blocking their entry at the border. “They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country. Even if the port of entry has ample capacity to inspect that person, including an available asylum officer trained to process asylum applications. Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away,” she wrote. She continued: ‘“The Court’s illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: ‘in.’ Words, however, must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the statute as a whole. The majority ignores the statutory context and history, not to mention the longstanding position of the Executive Branch, all of which show that any noncitizen arriving at our doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold. Because the Court today blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despi