The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a major showdown over President Trump’s power to shut down asylum access for illegal border crossers.

The case puts one of the President’s most important border actions directly before the nation’s highest court.

And while the justices have not ruled on the merits yet, taking the case means the legal fight over who controls entry into the United States is now headed for a decisive hearing.

The Court’s move was confirmed Friday afternoon as the case was added to the current term’s argument docket.

The case is Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, No. 26-239.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court’s Nov. 13 order grants review without deciding the ultimate question. President Trump’s policy has survived long enough to receive a full hearing before the justices, but the final legal outcome remains open.

SCOTUSblog reports that the dispute began with President Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025 proclamation declaring an invasion at the southern border and suspending entry for noncitizens covered by the order.

The administration’s guidance also blocked those illegal entrants from using asylum and related protections to remain in the country. It called for rapid removal without some of the procedures that would normally accompany an asylum claim.

A federal district judge struck down key parts of that policy, and a divided D.C. Circuit panel largely agreed. The panel majority said the proclamation could not bypass removal procedures and federal protections written by Congress.

The appeals court kept its own ruling on hold while the Trump administration sought Supreme Court review. As a result, the asylum restrictions remain in effect while the case moves forward.

The justices accepted two issues: the legality of the proclamation and guidance, and the lower court’s authority to issue broad relief. They declined the government’s request to review a separate dispute over the class-action rules themselves.

The legal battle is unfolding while the administration says its enforcement program has sharply reduced pressure at the border.

President Trump’s border proclamation rests on both constitutional authority and federal immigration law. It cites Section 1182(f) of Title 8, which allows a president to suspend the entry of aliens or classes of aliens when their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

The proclamation describes a system overwhelmed by illegal crossings and unable to reliably screen every entrant for criminal, national security, and public health risks. It also points to the power of cartels and transnational criminal organizations operating near the southern border.

ADVERTISEMENT

President Trump’s order says the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect the states against invasion. It argues that the normal immigration system becomes ineffective when crossing levels prevent officials from maintaining operational control and conducting meaningful screening.

The order also invokes Section 1185(a)(1) of Title 8, which allows presidential rules and restrictions governing entry into the United States. Together, those provisions form the administration’s legal foundation for suspending entry and denying access to asylum for people who violate the suspension.

The United States’ petition to the Supreme Court asks whether that proclamation and its implementing guidance are lawful.

Solicitor General John Sauer argues that suspending illegal entry and cutting off asylum access for people who violate that suspension are central pieces of the President’s response. He says the President acted within both inherent executive authority and power delegated by Congress.

The administration also says lower courts went too far by issuing broad relief for an entire class. That second question could have consequences well beyond this particular asylum policy because it reaches the power of lower courts to block immigration enforcement on a large scale.

The petition says the class includes people still overseas who have no imminent plan to enter the United States. The government argues those people have not suffered an injury and should not receive relief based on a future decision to cross illegally.

DHS made its current posture unmistakable again Friday when responding to reports of another caravan moving north.

The challengers are 13 individuals and three immigration nonprofits. They argue that the President cannot replace the asylum and withholding procedures created by Congress with a separate removal system.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the legality of the proclamation and the question of broad relief. It declined to take up a third issue concerning whether the certified class itself complies with the rules governing class actions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Oral arguments are expected next spring.

President Trump came back to Washington promising to restore control of the southern border. This case will give the Supreme Court a direct opportunity to define how far a president may go when Congress has already granted major authority over entry into the United States.

For now, the policy remains in place, the legal battle is alive, and one of the biggest immigration cases of President Trump’s second term is officially headed to the Supreme Court.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.