This week, Democratic lawmakers, former government officials, human rights advocates, immigration law professors, and dozens of faith organizations filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in support of people seeking asylum. The briefs were filed in the Noem v. Al Otro Lado case, slated to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 24, which concerns the government’s former turnback policy at the southern border. Under this policy, people seeking safety at U.S. border crossings were physically blocked from requesting asylum and accessing the legal process and were instead forced back to Mexico, where many faced grave harm.
Respondents in the case, the legal advocacy organization Al Otro Lado and a class of asylum seekers harmed by the turnback policy, filed their brief with the Court last week, arguing that the turnback policy violated federal law. A summary of the briefs filed by amici curiae this week can be found below.
26 DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS
“Congress decided who may apply for asylum and how the process works because we have power over immigration. The President cannot erase and overthrow those decisions by physically blocking access to the legal process. If an administration believes a statute no longer works, it can come to Congress with a proposal to change it but it cannot delete and rewrite the law on its own. Allowing that kind of executive end-run is a direct attack on the separation of powers,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
“Congress has, time and again, used its Constitutional authority to pass laws to create legal immigration pathways for those wanting to come to the United States. The Trump administration cannot ignore Federal law and pretend these legal pathways don’t exist. Executive orders — nor Stephen Miller’s sick fantasies — will never trump Federal law. If the White House wants to change immigration law, it must always come before Congress,” said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
“Congress has power over asylum and legal immigration pathways — not Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, or any executive branch official looking to unlawfully turn away people seeking protection in our country without giving them due process. The Trump Administration’s inhumane policy of turning away potential asylum seekers before they step foot on U.S. soil is a clear violation of federal law and a stain on our legacy as a nation of immigrants. Our brief makes clear that President Trump cannot unilaterally rewrite the rules of our immigration system; he needs an act of Congress — not an unlawful workaround,” said Sen. Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee.
See their full statement and read the brief here.
BIPARTISAN FORMER HIGH-RANKING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
A bipartisan group of former high-ranking government officials, including former officials in the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, State, Justice, Health and Human Services, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the National Security Council, write, “Asylum is neither an obstacle to border enforcement nor a luxury to be doled out only when the government deems it convenient. It is a central pillar of United States immigration law—one that reflects our country’s enduring commitment to help form a more perfect union by protecting and welcoming vulnerable people who arrive at our Nation’s doorstep fleeing from persecution.”
They argue that, based on their collective experience over the course of four decades and at least six presidential administrations, the U.S. government has consistently balanced its obligations to faithfully determine eligibility for admission at the border with the equally important obligation to ensure that people who arrive at the border seeking protection receive access to a fair legal process.
See their full statement and read their brief here.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, AND PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
“The turnback policy at issue in this case caused significant physical and psychological harm to asylum seekers, and it violated the United States’ international legal obligations codified by and recognized in domestic law,” write Amnesty International USA, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and Physicians for Human Rights. “Individuals and families subject to the turnback policy were turned away at ports of entry along the U.S. border and forced to wait—often for months—in Mexican border towns. There, they faced violence, kidnapping, extortion, sexual assault, robbery, food insecurity, and heinous living conditions that harmed their health.”
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER
“This case involves an application of U.S. law to interactions between border officials standing on U.S. soil and asylum-seekers at ports of entry—clearly the subject of the United States’s authority,” the Constitutional Accountability Center writes. “For decades, the federal government has exercised authority and control over not only asylum seekers within the country, but also those ‘attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entry.’ In addition, modern U.S. asylum law stems from the country’s international-law obligations toward asylum seekers. As the Supreme Court has made clear, these obligations should be a key part of determining the law’s reach.”
Learn more and read the brief here.
GLOBAL STRATEGIC LITIGATION COUNCIL
“Non-refoulement is recognized globally as the cornerstone of international refugee law and protection. The principle of non-refoulement as enshrined in Article 33(1) applies to States’ conduct at the border and therefore to the Turnback Policy. This bedrock principle requires the provision of access to fair and effective procedures to determine asylum seekers’ entitlement to protection against refoulement,” the Global Strategic Litigation Council writes. “Any contrary position would “constitute an unjustified departure from the settled understanding of non-refoulement, undermining the core protection of international refugee law.”
HIAS
“We have stood on both sides of this history — advocating for the passengers of the St. Louis in 1939 and serving families forced to wait in Mexico in recent years,” said Beth Oppenheim, HIAS CEO. “The human cost of denying entry is not theoretical. It is measured in lives disrupted, endangered, and sometimes lost. The court must uphold the clear promise in U.S. law: that those who reach our ports of entry have the right to ask for protection.”
See HIAS’s full statement and read the brief here.
IMMIGRATION LAW PROFESSORS
“Petitioners argue that the government can use coercive power to ‘meter’ asylum seekers—a practice used by United States Customs and Border Protection officers to turn away asylum seekers, including by blocking individuals who are just steps away from crossing the border at a port of entry into the United States—and deny them access to the asylum process the [Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)] requires,” write 18 law professors whose research, scholarship, and teaching focus on immigration law. “To accomplish this, petitioners ask this Court to ignore the plain language, statutory context, history, and purpose behind 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1225, so that they may evade their congressionally mandated duties to asylum seekers who have presented themselves at a port of entry but are not yet within the territorial United States.”
KAIROS CENTER FOR RELIGIONS, RIGHTS, AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, LEADING A COALITION OF 31 FAITH ORGANIZATIONS
“An interfaith group of 31 religious groups, traditions, and coalitions representing major faith traditions practiced by billions worldwide [writes] to highlight how extreme, and untenable, the Government’s interpretation of our asylum laws is from a historical, religious, and social perspective. The Government’s interpretation would allow it to block asylum seekers who reach the border from lawfully seeking protection from persecution. That position is incompatible with our country’s foundational understanding of society’s moral obligation to protect persecuted outsiders, an obligation reflected in our most sacred traditions and embodied in our asylum system.”
U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
“USCCB writes to underscore that the flaws in the turnback policy run much deeper than plain text. The policy violates the obligation to care for refugees—a fundamental legal and moral principle that runs through nearly two millennia of Catholic faith, an international humanitarian consensus, and this Nation’s history … What faith teaches, law commands, at least in this instance … Blessing the government’s reading of the [law]—and thereby opening the door to reinstatement of the turnback policy—would … be a moral disaster, not just a legal error.”
ABOUT THIS CASE
On November 17, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that had found the U.S. government’s former “turnback” policy—also known as “metering”—to be unlawful. Under this policy, border officers physically blocked people from presenting themselves at ports of entry along the southern border to seek asylum, forcing them back into Mexico. The Court will hear oral argument on 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 in the case.
For legal filings and more about the case, see the co-counsel 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