Supreme Court to rule on Trump's border asylum ban

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to settle a dispute over whether President Donald Trump has the authority to block asylum claims from people arriving at the southern border. The decision marks the third major immigration case on the docket for the current term.

The policy stems from a proclamation Trump issued on January 20, 2025. In that document, he declared an invasion at the border and established that individuals crossing without proper documentation could be expelled immediately. The rule prevents those individuals from seeking asylum while their cases are processed.

Federal judges have already ruled against the administration on this issue. In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found the policy illegal. He noted that neither the Constitution nor existing immigration laws grant the president the power to replace the comprehensive procedures set by Congress. In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that lower court ruling. The government sought Supreme Court review after losing in the appellate court.

The case was brought by 13 unnamed asylum seekers and three legal advocacy groups. Those groups are RAICES, the Las Americas Immigration Defense Center, and the Florence Project for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union argue that the ban violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. They contend that the law allows immigrants to argue they have a credible fear of torture or persecution if returned to their home countries.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer represents the government before the high court. In filings, he argued that the president has inherent and delegated powers to exclude foreigners. He cited a provision of immigration law that allows the president to restrict entry if he deems it would be detrimental to U.S. interests. Sauer described the policy as a commonsense interpretation of those powers.

Supporters of stricter immigration controls argue that the asylum process is often used to remain in the United States during case processing, even without valid grounds for protection. Opponents maintain that Congress established specific protections that the president cannot remove by executive order.

The court is expected to issue a final decision by the end of June. The ruling will clarify the scope of presidential power over border enforcement. It will determine if the executive branch can create a new system of expulsion that bypasses congressional statutes.