The Supreme Court

6-3 BORDER BOMBSHELL! Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Asylum Policy

posted by Hannity Staff - 6.25.26

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major immigration victory Thursday, ruling that his administration may turn away migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border before they are allowed to apply for asylum.

In a 6-3 decision, the court concluded that federal immigration law does not require the government to process asylum claims from individuals who have not yet entered the United States, siding with the administration’s interpretation of the law.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the statutory language should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning.

Breaking Alerts
Don't miss the stories that matter.
Get Sean's breaking news alerts — free, direct to your inbox.

“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place,” Alito wrote.

“The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading. So does the presumption against extraterritoriality.”

The ruling allows the Trump Administration to continue turning away migrants encountered at or before the border rather than allowing them into the United States to pursue asylum claims, marking a significant legal victory for the White House’s broader immigration enforcement agenda.

The administration had argued that existing immigration law permits officials to deny entry to migrants who have not yet entered U.S. territory and therefore have not triggered statutory asylum protections.

The decision overturns lower court rulings that had blocked the policy and represents one of the administration’s most consequential immigration victories before the nation’s highest court.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the unusual step of reading portions of her dissent from the bench, a move often reserved for cases in which a justice strongly disagrees with the majority’s reasoning or wishes to underscore the significance of the decision.

This story is developing…