A major legal battle over the ability of asylum seekers<\/a> to apply for refuge in the U.S. at ports of entry along the border with Mexico lands at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as the Trump administration pushes for broad authority to turn migrants away regardless of their claims.<\/p>\n From the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has effectively blocked the entry<\/a> of all noncitizens at the southern border, including those seeking safety and protection from credible fears of violence and persecution.<\/p>\n Immigrant advocates<\/a> challenging the approach in multiple lawsuits allege it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act mandate that noncitizens who are “physically present in the U.S.” or who “arrive in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum.<\/a><\/p>\n The dispute largely turns on competing interpretations of what it means to “arrive in” the country.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., March 18, 2026.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Bill Clark\/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n “In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Trump Solicitor General John Sauer argues in a court filing. “A person does not ‘arrive in the United States’ if he is stopped in Mexico.”<\/p>\n Nicole Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case, says Congress had a more nuanced view when it drafted the law following the U.S. failure to accept Jewish refugees<\/a> from the Holocaust.<\/p>\n “The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”<\/p>\n Trump has invoked multiple legal authorities to support his current border crackdown<\/a>.<\/p>\n At issue in the case being argued Tuesday is the so-called “turn back” policy from Trump’s first term that kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico<\/a> as a method of “metering” access at border crossings that faced overcrowding.<\/p>\n While the administration voluntarily discontinued the practice in 2021 after a lower court deemed it unlawful, the government insists it has broad discretion to regulate the border and now wants the justices to approve the ability to reinstate the policy if necessary.<\/p>\n President Donald Trump speaks during the “Shield of the Americas” Summit at Trump National Doral in Miami, March 7, 2026.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Saul Loeb\/AFP via Getty Images<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n “Administrations of both major parties have opposed the [lower court] decision, which deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry,” Sauer wrote. “This Court should reverse.”<\/p>\n Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing several asylum-seeker plaintiffs, said a ruling for the administration could have a major impact, even if not immediate.<\/p>\n![\"border](\"https:\/\/i.abcnewsfe.com\/a\/fcfe02bf-2b88-48f8-81d3-bb767981db53\/supreme-gty-er-260320_1774040622670_hpEmbed_3x2.jpg?w=375 "\\"border")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/div>![\"Congress\"](\"https:\/\/i.abcnewsfe.com\/a\/a0129a03-1f2d-43a8-b9c5-a4cc5ace8c50\/trump-gty-er-260320_1774040622558_hpEmbed_3x2.jpg?w=375 "\\"Congress\\"")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/div>
![\"director](\"https:\/\/i.abcnewsfe.com\/a\/c4aa8ab5-d416-4be9-8ac3-b62a3f878b76\/border-1-gty-er-260320_1774040196298_hpMain.jpg?w=375 "\\"director")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/div>