The US Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Biden administration policy that allows asylum seekers to apply for protection from abroad, rejecting a challenge from Republican-led states that sought to require them to wait in Mexico.
Details of the ruling
In a 6-3 decision, the court found that the administration's policy, known as the "circumvention of lawful pathways" rule, was lawful. The rule, implemented in May 2023, presumes that migrants who cross the border illegally are ineligible for asylum unless they have applied for protection in a third country or used a legal pathway. The ruling overturned a lower court decision that had blocked the policy.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stated that the policy was consistent with immigration law and that the states lacked standing to challenge it. Kavanaugh noted that the rule was designed to encourage migrants to use legal channels, such as the CBP One app, rather than crossing illegally.
Impact on border enforcement
The decision is a major victory for the Biden administration, which has struggled to manage record numbers of migrants at the southern border. The rule has been credited with reducing illegal crossings; according to government data, encounters at the border dropped by more than 40% in the months after it was implemented. The administration argued that the policy was necessary to deter illegal immigration and reduce the burden on the asylum system.
Republican-led states, including Texas and Florida, had challenged the rule, arguing that it exceeded the administration's authority and encouraged illegal immigration. They contended that the policy violated a 1996 law requiring detention of most asylum seekers. The court disagreed, finding that the rule was a permissible exercise of executive discretion.
Reactions to the ruling
"This is a critical step in restoring order at the border," said a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson. "The Supreme Court has affirmed our ability to enforce the law humanely and efficiently." Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision "a blow to border security" and vowed to continue fighting the policy through other means.
Immigrant advocacy groups expressed mixed reactions. Some praised the court for upholding a policy that reduces dangerous border crossings, while others criticized the rule for limiting access to asylum. "While we are relieved the policy remains in place, we remain concerned about its impact on vulnerable families," said a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union.
