Today immigrant rights advocates, asylum seekers, and faith leaders gathered for a media briefing ahead of upcoming arguments before the Supreme Court in Noem v. Al Otro Lado. The case, filed on behalf of courageous asylum seekers and legal service provider Al Otro Lado, focuses on the legality of a border policy blocking access to the U.S. asylum process. Advocates argue the turnback policy, under which immigration officers physically blocked people seeking safety at official border crossings from setting foot onto U.S. soil, flouts federal immigration law and our society’s deepest held legal and moral principles.
A recording of the media briefing, including audio in both English and Spanish, is available upon request.
“We are headed to the Supreme Court next week with the law firmly on our side,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) and co-counsel in the case. “Our immigration laws require that every person seeking asylum at a U.S. port of entry has a meaningful opportunity to present their legal claims. The Trump administration cannot implement a policy that unilaterally rewrites our laws and flouts the rights that Congress gave asylum seekers. For far too many people subjected to the government's turnback policy, denial of access to the asylum process was a death sentence. The stakes in this case could not be higher. We will continue to fight for a fair asylum process that respects the rights and dignity of all people seeking safety at our nation's doorstep.”
“The right to seek asylum is not a policy preference or a loophole—it is a legal right and a moral commitment forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Seeking asylum is not like taking a number at a deli counter and waiting for your turn,” said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Border Rights Project Director at Al Otro Lado, plaintiff in the case. “You cannot ask someone fleeing rape, torture, or death threats to wait in danger indefinitely because a government has decided their lives are inconvenient. We filed this case because the United States has an obligation to follow its own laws—laws duly enacted by Congress. The question before the Court is whether those laws can be set aside by executive action, or whether they remain binding at the border, as written.”
“I came to the United States seeking safety after surviving torture and attempts on my life, but I was turned away again and again when I asked for asylum. That rejection left me trapped in fear when I had nowhere else to go. Finding refuge has given me a second chance at life,” said Benito*, an asylee who was harmed by the turnback policy. “Cases like Noem v. Al Otro Lado matter because no one fleeing danger should be denied the chance to ask for protection — seeking asylum saves lives.”
“Our nation was founded as a sanctuary for peoples fleeing unsafe lands,” said Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, Executive Director at the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, which led 31 faith organizations on an amicus brief in support of asylum seekers. “Faith communities have always played a fundamental role in protecting and continuing this legacy, because every faith tradition—including but not limited to those represented by these amici curiae—holds asylum as a sacred mandate to nations.”
*Pseudonym used to protect individual’s safety