WASHINGTON — Taking up another key aspect of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration agenda, the Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether the administration has the authority to bar asylum applications at the southern border.
Although a federal judge ruled that the policy Trump adopted on the first day of his second term was illegal, it remained in effect while the litigation continues.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected before the end of June, will be the final word on the Trump administration’s sweeping assertion of presidential power over people attempting to file asylum claims at the border, despite federal law passed by Congress that sets out a procedure for doing so.
The asylum dispute is the third major case involving Trump’s immigration policies considered by the court, while the justices may take up other Trump-related cases in the coming months.
The ban stems from a proclamation issued by the president on January 20, 2025, declaring an “invasion” on the southern border.
Under one of its provisions, anyone who crosses the border without the required documents can be immediately expelled without being able to apply for asylum.
Immigration hawks have long complained that people who enter the country illegally seek asylum in order to stay in the country while their cases are processed, even if they don’t have valid claims.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers that the president has broad authority to bar entry into the United States, both under specific federal immigration laws and powers delegated to him in the Constitution.
This policy “rests on a common-sense understanding of the President’s inherent and delegated powers to exclude outsiders,” Sauer wrote.
He pointed to a provision of immigration law that says the president can restrict the entry of anyone when he believes doing so would be “harmful to the interests of the United States.”
The policy was challenged by 13 anonymous plaintiffs, as well as three immigration groups: the Center for Education and Legal Services for Refugees and Immigrants, the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.
Their lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union say the ban flouts asylum rules implemented by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). As part of this process, immigrants can argue that they have a “credible fear” of being tortured or persecuted if returned to their country of origin.
The president “cannot invent by executive order a new system of impeachment that eviscerates Congress’ statutory protections,” they wrote in court papers.
In July 2025, Washington-based U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled against the administration, saying nothing in the Constitution or immigration law “grants the President…the authority to supersede the detailed rules and procedures set forth in the INA.”
In April of this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Moss’ ruling, leading the administration to seek review from the Supreme Court.
In one of two other immigration cases on the Supreme Court’s docket, the justices will examine the administration’s continued efforts to deport immigrants to “third countries” with which they have no prior ties if they cannot be returned to their home countries.
The other case involves the administration’s attempt to indefinitely detain thousands of people in deportation proceedings, a departure from previous administrations, which released those immigrants while their cases were adjudicated.
This asylum case follows a related ruling in favor of the president’s authority over the border in June.
The Supreme Court has had a steady stream of Trump-related immigration cases since his first term, when it upheld his travel ban on people from majority-Muslim countries entering the United States.
But in June, the court dealt Trump a major blow by blocking his executive order aimed at limiting the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Gn headline
