US Supreme Court to decide whether Trump can suspend asylum claims at the southern border

Federal law lets people seek asylum if they fear persecution in their home countries, whatever way they arrived in the United States, and the executive branch decides whether to grant it. Opponents say those decisions must be made case by case and that the law does not allow the president to stop people from applying at all.

A federal judge in Washington ruled for immigrant rights groups that had challenged the order. The administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, where a three-judge panel ruled against it. The appeals court held that federal law gives the president discretion over asylum decisions, but that he cannot deny them categorically. The Supreme Court did not give a reason for taking the case, as is its practice when it grants review.

The two sides and the questions

The justices will consider whether the order is lawful and whether a judge can grant relief to all asylum seekers and not only the plaintiffs, a question about the reach of court orders. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote that border encounters have fallen 93% since the proclamation took effect, to their lowest level since the 1960s, and called the restrictions critical to that. Federal lawyers say years-long processing times had contributed to a major influx, because many migrants were released into the country while awaiting decisions.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several immigrant rights groups say border crossings were already falling before Trump took office. They call the order an unlawful attempt to unilaterally remove legal protections for people fleeing danger. Keren Zwick, the executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, said the plaintiffs fled persecution and torture, including political imprisonment and threats from the Taliban, and that the administration refused to consider them for asylum.

Why it matters

This is the third major immigration case the court will hear this term. The others concern whether people can be quickly deported to countries other than their own, and whether immigrants can be held indefinitely during deportation proceedings. Earlier, the court ruled for the administration in another asylum case, which could allow it to revive a policy of metering, in which officials turn migrants back at the border. A ruling for the refugees in this case could limit that approach, and a ruling for the administration could give a president wide powers to close the asylum system.

For people at the border, nothing changes until the court decides, and the proclamation continues to apply. The case will be argued on the court's calendar in the spring, and the court's website posts the briefs and the argument schedule. Legal analysts will watch two things: how the justices treat the word invasion, which the administration says is a decision for the president, and whether they limit the way lower courts grant relief to people who are not parties to a case.

The case is named Mullin v. RAICES because it is brought against the officials who run the policy, and Markwayne Mullin is the Secretary of Homeland Security. The groups challenging the order are the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services and other organisations, who sued on behalf of people seeking asylum. The Supreme Court's term runs from the first Monday in October to the end of June or early July, and cases it agrees to hear in November are typically argued in the early months of the next year, which is consistent with the spring argument described in the reports.