The Supreme Court has granted review in Mullin v. RAICES, a challenge to President Trump’s proclamation completely shutting down asylum at the border.
The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and ACLU of Texas brought the federal lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of people barred from seeking protection in the United States under this proclamation, as well as three immigrant legal service providers, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.
The federal district court in Washington, D.C. and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit both rejected the Trump administration’s unlawful proclamation barring people from seeking asylum by invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and citing a nonexistent “invasion.”
The lower federal courts ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor because the Trump administration’s action is contrary to laws enacted by Congress to ensure that people receive an opportunity to have their asylum claims heard.
The Supreme Court granted the government’s petition to hear the case, and argument is expected in spring 2027.
The following is reaction to the Supreme Court decision to hear the case:
“The president does not have the right to unilaterally override the protections Congress has afforded those fleeing danger,” said Lee Gelernt, lead counsel and deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The courts are right to reject this unprecedented power grab that would put countless lives in danger. We look forward to making our case before the Supreme Court.”
“The plaintiffs in this case fled persecution and torture, including political imprisonment and threats from the Taliban. Yet, the Trump administration refused to honor its obligation to consider them for asylum,” said Keren Zwick, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center. “Some plaintiffs were removed to third countries and then pushed back to the very place they fled; others faced prolonged detention without access to legal due process. Even after the lower courts rejected the president’s proclamation, the administration has continued to block access to asylum at the U.S. border. This vicious attack on due process and human rights has put thousands of lives in danger. We are honored to represent these asylum seekers, and their advocates, as this important case proceeds."
“For nearly two years, the Trump administration's unlawful asylum shutdown has deprived people seeking safety of their rights, placing vulnerable families, children, and adults in harm's way,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “Refugees fleeing persecution and torture have been denied access to the asylum process and deported to danger. The lower courts got it right: The president cannot unilaterally rewrite our immigration laws and defy the will of Congress to get its way. It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will uphold the rule of law or bend to the administration's agenda.”
“No one seeking safety at our borders should be denied that opportunity. It is incredibly timely that the Supreme Court will hear our case, as the nation saw a clear mandate from midterm voters earlier this month. Our communities made their voices heard on immigration, economic justice, and the many misdirections this administration has taken,” said Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project. “Asylum seekers deserve to have their rights protected, and we will continue fighting to ensure that the dedicated organizations who serve them directly have the ability to do so.”
“The Supreme Court faces a stark choice. Respect the rule of law and uphold the right to asylum, or allow the executive to decide on its own who gets to ask for safety,” said Nicolas Palazzo, interim executive director of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “For the people we represent in El Paso and along the border, the court’s answer will decide whether they find protection or are sent back to the danger they fled.”
“Congress has determined that the United States has not only a moral but a legal obligation to provide people seeking safety at our borders a process to access protection. This attempt to unilaterally stop all asylum processing at the border is an unprecedented and illegal overreach that puts countless people in danger,” said Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.
“Across this country, the American people firmly reject an unchecked executive that operates with disregard for the law,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, co-chief executive officer of RAICES. “Our system of checks and balances exists for moments precisely like this — to ensure no single branch can consolidate power at will. By agreeing to hear this case, the Supreme Court faces a critical constitutional responsibility: to uphold the limits of executive power and make clear that no president is beyond congressional authority. Future generations will look back at this decision, and the court must demonstrate that the rule of law applies equitably to all.”