Brief Filed Ahead of SCOTUS Arguments in Major Asylum Case
Today, the legal advocacy organization Al Otro Lado and a class of courageous asylum seekers filed their brief with the Supreme Court ahead of a March 24 argument on the legality of a now-defunct policy blocking access to the U.S. asylum process. Respondents in the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, argue the turnback policy, under which immigration officers physically and indefinitely blocked people seeking safety at official border crossings from setting foot onto U.S. soil, flouted federal immigration law.
“Our asylum system was built in the shadow of the Holocaust, after the world saw the deadly consequences of closing its doors to people fleeing persecution,” said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Director of the Border Rights Project at Al Otro Lado, the plaintiff organization in the Noem v. Al Otro Lado case. “The turnback policy made clear this was never about people ‘waiting in line’—it was about blocking the only pathway many refugees had to save their lives. For years, asylum seekers were forced to wait in conditions where many were kidnapped, assaulted, or killed simply for trying to seek protection. No president has the authority to ignore laws duly enacted by Congress, backed by the Constitution, that fulfill this country’s promise to protect human life. We are ready to bring this fight before the Court next month.”
The Al Otro Lado case is a border-wide class action brought against officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Specifically, while the turnback policy was in place, DHS maintained that immigration officers could violate federal law by physically blocking noncitizens from requesting asylum at a port of entry.
For over a century, under our immigration laws, the government has been required to inspect and process people seeking asylum who present themselves at designated ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border – as they must inspect all noncitizens seeking admission to the United States. This requirement ensures that we do not send vulnerable people back to danger without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.
The government’s policy of turning asylum seekers back to Mexico violated that requirement. As a result, vulnerable children, families, and adults remained indefinitely stranded in perilous conditions in Mexico.
Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the policy unlawful. In November, the Court granted that request, and oral arguments are now set for Tuesday, March 24.
The American Immigration Council, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), the Center for Constitutional Rights, Democracy Forward, and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection represent Al Otro Lado.
The brief filed today can be found here: https://cgrs.uclawsf.edu/en/legal-document/brief-respondents
For more about the case, see the organizations’ case pages below and the partner campaign website, No Turning Back.
https://cgrs.uclawsf.edu/en/our-work/litigation/noem-v-al-otro-lado