Loading the Audio Player…
The nation’s highest court considered oral arguments Tuesday on whether border officials can turn immigrants back to stop them from crossing the U.S. southern border. The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that blocked officials from using the Obama-era practice formally adopted under Trump’s first administration. Homeland Security officials used the practice, referred to as metering, when ports of entry reached maximum capacity.
What’s the disputed question? The court will rule on whether migrants can seek asylum when approaching the entry port or when the individual steps on U.S. soil. The immigrant-rights organization Al Otro Lado argued that physically blocking asylum seekers at entry ports violated federal asylum laws. Asylum law applies to noncitizens who arrive in the United States, and this statute includes migrants who present themselves at an entry port, according to the group.
Justice Department attorney Vivek Suri pushed back on the presentation arguments, claiming that asylum-seekers can’t present their claims from another country. One can’t arrive in the United States when one is physically still in Mexico and under the responsibility of Mexican officials, he argued.
Several justices also pushed back on the arrival argument, including Justice Samuel Alito. When someone knocks on the front door of a house, that person has arrived at the house, not in it, he said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited historic treaty obligations added to immigration law after U.S. officials refused to admit Jewish immigrants fleeing Nazi Germany. Those people were sent back to where they came from and killed, and that’s what the government is doing now, she said. Suri responded by arguing that the government had no obligation to process asylum claims for people not present in the country.