Supreme Court to Review Trump's Border Asylum Ban as Crossings Fell to 6,000
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Nov 13
Supreme Court to Review Trump's Border Asylum Ban as Crossings Fell to 6,000
3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Nov 13
Summary
The justices agreed Friday to hear whether Trump can categorically bar asylum claims at the southern border, setting up a major test of presidential power over immigration law.
The policy, imposed on Trump's first day back in office, declared an "invasion" at the border and was later enforced through DHS guidance blocking asylum applications from people who crossed illegally.
Lower courts have ruled the ban unlawful — including a July 2025 district court decision and a 2-1 appeals ruling in April — but it has largely remained in effect under a temporary court order.
The administration told the court the ban is its main tool against illegal entry, citing a drop to just over 6,000 Border Patrol arrests in June 2025 from more than 200,000 in December 2023.
The case joins a Supreme Court term already packed with Trump immigration fights, including December arguments on third-country deportations and a later review of indefinite detention policy.
Will the Supreme Court prioritize a dramatic drop in border arrests over decades of established asylum law?
Trump’s Asylum Ban Faces Supreme Court Test as Border Crossings Plummet and Deportations Hit Record Highs
Overview
President Trump's January 2025 executive proclamation declared an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border, triggering a sweeping asylum ban and new Department of Homeland Security guidance to block asylum applications and speed up removals. This led to the termination of mobile asylum scheduling, leaving hundreds of thousands of migrants stranded in Mexico, and caused border encounters to drop to historic lows. Legal challenges followed, with federal courts striking down the policy, but the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Meanwhile, Congress responded to public backlash and enforcement controversies by launching oversight investigations and debating reforms, as the nation awaited a landmark Supreme Court decision on executive power and immigration law.