Supreme Court hears case on asylum seekers’ rights

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether asylum starts at a port of entry or only after someone steps onto U.S. soil under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The justices, hearing arguments March 24 in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, painstakingly interrogated the legal and linguistic meaning of “arrives in” and “arrives at,” with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett signaling that they support the Trump administration’s “arrives in” definition, which would prevent migrants from crossing the border to claim asylum.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that her colleagues were missing the context and spirit of the statute in question, which sought to protect refugees from persecution.

“They’ve arrived. They are knocking at the door,” Sotomayor said.

Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, an attorney for Al Otro Lado, a legal and humanitarian aid group for migrants, argued: “You cannot ask someone fleeing rape, torture, or death threats to wait in danger indefinitely because a government has decided their lives are inconvenient.”

The United States Conference of Bishops agree, as they explained in an amicus curiae brief: “The turnback policy is not just a flawed piece of statutory interpretation but an historical aberration — one that, during the period it was enforced, left vulnerable asylum seekers stranded in encampments on the border while lawfully trying to seek asylum at a port of entry.”

“Metering,” or placing border crossers into various lines based on their status, was stopped by the Biden administration in 2021, but the Trump administration, represented in court by Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, said it may be necessary to reinstate because of overwhelming demand for entry at the border, when asked by Barrett if reinstating metering was in the offing.

A decision is expected by July.

Read original article