The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether President Donald Trump has the power to shut down asylum claims at the southern border, setting up a final showdown over one of the pillars of his immigration crackdown.
The justices took up the administration’s appeal of lower-court rulings that found the policy illegal. The asylum ban stays in effect while the case is pending, and a decision is expected by the end of June, according to NBC News, the Associated Press and Reuters.
What the asylum ban does
The policy comes from a proclamation Trump signed on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, declaring an “invasion” at the southern border. Under one of its provisions, anyone who crosses without the required paperwork can be removed right away, without the chance to apply for asylum.
Reuters reports the ban also applies to migrants who arrive at official border crossings without certain medical or criminal-history information, a requirement advocates say is often impossible to meet for people fleeing violence. The proclamation says the policy stays in place until the president decides the “invasion” is over. The administration has credited it with helping to bring down border crossings.
Two courts already ruled against it
In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled the policy unlawful, finding that neither the Constitution nor immigration law grants the president authority to replace the comprehensive rules and procedures Congress wrote into the Immigration and Nationality Act. In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld his ruling, which led the administration to ask the Supreme Court to step in.
The challenge was brought by 13 unnamed plaintiffs and three immigrant-rights groups: the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. Their lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union argue the ban flouts the asylum process Congress set up, under which migrants can argue they have a “credible fear” of torture or persecution if sent home.
The administration’s argument
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices the president has sweeping authority to bar entry to the U.S., both under federal immigration law and the powers the Constitution gives him. According to NBC News, he wrote that the policy “rests on a commonsense understanding of the President’s inherent and delegated powers to exclude aliens.”
Iowa and 21 other states filed in support of the administration’s petition, according to SCOTUSblog.
Why it matters
NBC News reports this is the third significant case on Trump’s immigration policies the court is now weighing. Its ruling will be the final word on how far a president can go in blocking asylum claims at the border, despite the procedures written into federal law by Congress.
Arguments are expected in the coming months.
Will the justices side with Trump or with the lower courts? Tell us what you think on our Facebook page.