“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
US officials sought to deny immigrants asylum by blocking their entry into the US.
What happened in this case?
During Trump’s first term, the government adopted a nationwide “metering” policy under which it strictly limited the number of immigrants it would process and allow to apply for asylum by physically blocking their entry into the US at the border. This significantly expanded a similar, more limited policy instituted towards the end of the Obama Administration to deal with an unexpected influx of Haitian immigrants at the US-Mexico border.
A federal lawsuit was filed in 2017, which resulted in an order invalidating the policy that was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The Biden Administration rescinded the policy, but the Trump Administration indicated that it wants to be able to reinstate it, and pursued the case in the Supreme Court.
All three Trump justices joined a 6-3 decision by Justice Alito that reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the policy in June in Mullin v Al Otro Lado. Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
What was the rationale of the majority?
Justice Alito based his majority decision on a narrow reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA provides that someone who “arrives in the United States” can be processed and considered for asylum. According to Alito, that does not apply to someone who arrives at the US border but does not set foot “in” the country because government agents block the entry. This is in accord with “ordinary speech,” Alito wrote, in which “no one would say” that a person “arrives in” a place until and unless the person actually “enters that place.”
Why did Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissent?
Justice Sotomayor strongly disagreed. She wrote that the majority’s position “ignores the statutory context and history,” as well as the “longstanding position of the Executive Branch,” all of which show that any noncitizen “arriving at our doorstep” must be allowed to apply for asylum “regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold.” She went on to explain the likely consequences if the Administration reinstates the metering policy, as it now can do: “More people will attempt to cross the border illegally,” more will be “subjected to violence” in their home countries, and more “people will die.” Sotomayor read part of her dissent from the bench, to which Alito responded “with anger dripping from his voice.”
Why is this decision harmful?
The asylum ruling made possible by Trump justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett strongly supports the Trump Administration policy of limiting asylum as much as possible and threatens to harm many victims of persecution. Although it rests on statutory interpretation and not the Constitution, reversing it would require action by a veto-proof Congress to contradict Trump. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.