Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pushed back Tuesday on an attorney defending migrants seeking asylum, challenging the argument that those stopped at the border have “arrived in” the United States — a key issue in an immigration case.
The case stems from a Trump administration petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling that found migrants remain eligible for asylum even if stopped at a port of entry on the Mexico side, concluding they had still “arrived” in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether migrants blocked at the border can seek asylum and how officials will handle future surges.
Kelsi Corkran, an attorney representing asylum seekers, argued that the phrases “arriving at” and “arriving in” a location carry the same meaning, and that the only difference between “at” and “in” is grammatical.
Alito challenged that interpretation, repeatedly pressing whether migrants stopped at the border can be said to have “arrived in” the United States, a distinction that determines whether they qualify for asylum protection.
“So there’s been talk about knocking at the door. Do you think someone who comes to the front door and knocks at the door has arrived in the house? The person may have arrived at the house?” Alito asked, testing that logic.
“No, but that’s past tense,” Corkran said. “Are they arriving in the house?”
‘BLANKIES,’ ICE TACTICS, AND LUXURY JETS: TOP MOMENTS FROM NOEM’S HOUSE TESTIMONY
Alito pressed Corkran again, asking whether someone still knocking outside could be said to have arrived inside the house.
“Yes, I think here the door is open,” Corkran said.
JUSTICE JACKSON AUTHORS UNANIMOUS SCOTUS OPINION HANDING TRUMP AN IMMIGRATION WIN
She said asylum seekers at the “threshold” should be treated as arriving.
U.S. law allows migrants at the border to seek asylum by claiming fear of persecution, a process that can lead to legal status if approved. Critics argue the system is often abused, with some migrants filing weak claims and not appearing for hearings.
An amicus brief filed by the HIAS Foundation affirmed Corkran’s point, asserting that denying asylum for refugees not physically on U.S. soil creates a “a legal no-man’s land.”
“People are left in limbo in dangerous border towns, unable to access the process our laws guarantee to those who arrive at a port of entry and present themselves to U.S. officials standing on U.S. soil,” the brief stated.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in his brief that “arrive in the United States” does not include someone stopped in Mexico.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the case may come as late as June.
