Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Trump’s Southern Border Asylum Suspension

The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s petition to review a D.C. Circuit decision that invalidated the president’s executive order suspending access to asylum for noncitizens engaged in what the order described as an ongoing invasion at the southern border. The case, Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, is expected to be argued this term with a decision likely by June or July 2027.

President Trump issued the proclamation on January 20, 2025, his first day in office, stating that “an invasion is ongoing at the southern border” and temporarily blocking entry of noncitizens engaged in that invasion. Implementing guidance restricted the ability of such individuals to apply for asylum. A federal district judge and later the D.C. Circuit ruled that the policy exceeded the president’s statutory and constitutional powers. The appeals court stayed its ruling, allowing the restrictions to remain in effect while the government sought Supreme Court review.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court that suspending illegal entry and precluding asylum access constituted “the most important and effective pieces of the President’s response” to conditions at the border. Administration filings cited a 93 percent drop in border encounters since the proclamation took effect and argued that the order is necessary to prevent cartels from exploiting processing backlogs. Lower courts had found that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the government to provide asylum screening opportunities to those who reach U.S. soil or ports of entry.

The Court agreed to consider the legality of the proclamation and the accompanying guidance, as well as the scope of the lower court’s relief. It declined to take up a separate question about class-action procedures. The case joins other immigration matters already on the docket, including challenges involving removals to third countries and prolonged detention.

Border encounters have remained at historic lows under the current administration relative to peaks in prior years, according to Customs and Border Protection data. The administration has described the combination of the asylum suspension, expanded interior enforcement, and diplomatic pressure on transit countries as central to that reduction. Opponents contend the order conflicts with statutory asylum protections and international obligations. The stay has kept the policy operational pending final resolution.