Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Trump’s Southern Border Asylum Ban

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether President Donald Trump acted lawfully when he shut down asylum at the southern border on his first day back in office.

The justices announced on Friday, 13 November 2026, that they will hear the Trump administration’s appeal in Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, known as Mullin v. RAICES. The case challenges the president’s January 2025 proclamation suspending asylum for migrants who cross the US-Mexico border outside official ports of entry.

The decision does not prejudge the outcome. But it guarantees a definitive answer on a question that has divided lower courts and shaped border policy for nearly two years: can a president, by declaring an invasion, set aside the asylum system Congress created?

What the justices agreed to decide

The dispute centres on Proclamation 10888, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”, which Mr Trump signed on 20 January 2025, hours after returning to the White House. The proclamation declared an invasion at the southern border and invoked Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision that allows the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens whose entry he finds detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Under the policy, migrants crossing between ports of entry were largely barred from seeking asylum or other humanitarian protection, and immigration officials were directed to remove them under expedited procedures.

The Supreme Court agreed to review two questions. First, whether the proclamation and the procedures used to enforce it violate federal immigration law. Second, whether federal judges may grant relief covering an entire class of migrants affected by the restrictions.

The administration, in a petition filed in late August 2026 by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that the president has broad authority under federal immigration law and his constitutional powers to bar entry. The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union and the immigrant legal services organisation RAICES, argue that the ban conflicts with laws Congress enacted to guarantee people an opportunity to have their asylum claims heard.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the lower courts ruled in the plaintiffs’ favour because the administration’s action ran counter to laws enacted by Congress to ensure that people receive an opportunity to have their asylum claims heard.

How the case reached the Supreme Court

The lawsuit was filed in February 2025, weeks after the proclamation, on behalf of three immigrant legal service providers — RAICES, the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project — along with 13 individuals and a nationwide class of people barred from seeking protection under the policy. RAICES said the Supreme Court had granted review in the case on Friday, bringing the challenge to the president’s proclamation before the justices.

In July 2025, US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington ruled against the administration, finding that the proclamation exceeded presidential authority by replacing immigration procedures established by Congress. In his 128-page ruling, Judge Moss wrote: “The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.” In April 2026, a divided three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that decision, concluding that the administration had unlawfully restricted access to asylum and created removal procedures outside the federal immigration system.

The appeals court allowed the restrictions to remain in effect while the case continued, so the ban has stayed in place throughout the litigation.

The case arrives at the Supreme Court alongside a series of other immigration disputes. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on 9 December in a separate case challenging the administration’s policy of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, and on 30 November they will hear Wassily v. Blanche, on whether immigrants who received asylum can obtain lawful permanent resident status after that status is terminated.

What happens next

The case is one of several immigration disputes moving through the courts this year. In separate episodes, a child was taken into custody at a routine immigration check-in in San Diego, a federal judge blocked a deportation flight carrying Afghans bound for Taliban-controlled territory, and another deportation flight was cancelled on the tarmac in Arizona after a judge’s order was tested.

Arguments in the asylum case are expected in spring 2027, with some reports pointing to March, and a decision is anticipated by the end of June 2027, before the court recesses for the summer.

The stakes extend well beyond the border. A ruling for the administration would affirm a sweeping view of presidential power to suspend asylum during a declared emergency. A ruling for the challengers would restore access to asylum hearings for people crossing between ports of entry and reinforce Congress’s role in setting the terms of the immigration system.

Either way, the decision will shape how the United States treats people seeking protection at its southern border for years to come.