Asylum-seekers wait in line to receive breakfast outside a temporary shelter on November 24, 2018 in Tijuana, Mexico. (Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Dec 20, 2018
In what immigrant rights groups celebrated as a significant victory over President Donald Trump's xenophobic agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the White House cannot automatically deny asylum to those who don't enter the country through an "official" border crossing.
"The Trump administration can no longer discriminate against asylum-seekers based on how they entered the country," RAICES, the largest immigration legal services non-profit in Texas, wrote on Twitter. "This government's policy of clogging ports of entry and then punishing those who cross outside is immoral. We're glad it's beginning to crumble."
\u201cBIG VICTORY: The Trump admin can no longer discriminate against asylum-seekers based on how they entered the country.\n\nThis gov's policy of clogging ports of entry & then punishing those who cross outside is immoral.\n\nWe're glad it's beginning to crumble. https://t.co/K8AQJhLbfw\u201d— RAICES (@RAICES) 1545425754
In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that blocked the Trump administration's asylum rule from taking effect. Conservative Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices in denying the Trump administration's plea to allow the policy to move forward, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the White House.
As the ACLU noted in its legal brief to the Supreme Court, those "fleeing persecution" in their home countries are "desperate" and often have "no understanding of the option to apply for asylum at a port, are forced by gangs and others to enter away from designated ports of entry, or cannot realistically travel to such ports because of danger and distance."
While noting that the legal battle over the Trump administration's policy is far from over, Bloomberg observed that "the high court rebuff of Trump's request to block the order suggests skepticism about the administration's legal case."
"The disputed Trump policy, designed to apply for 90 days, would effectively require all asylum claims to be made at official ports of entry," Bloomberg noted. "Federal immigration law says people may apply for asylum 'whether or not at a designated port of arrival' and 'irrespective of such alien's status.'"
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In what immigrant rights groups celebrated as a significant victory over President Donald Trump's xenophobic agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the White House cannot automatically deny asylum to those who don't enter the country through an "official" border crossing.
"The Trump administration can no longer discriminate against asylum-seekers based on how they entered the country," RAICES, the largest immigration legal services non-profit in Texas, wrote on Twitter. "This government's policy of clogging ports of entry and then punishing those who cross outside is immoral. We're glad it's beginning to crumble."
\u201cBIG VICTORY: The Trump admin can no longer discriminate against asylum-seekers based on how they entered the country.\n\nThis gov's policy of clogging ports of entry & then punishing those who cross outside is immoral.\n\nWe're glad it's beginning to crumble. https://t.co/K8AQJhLbfw\u201d— RAICES (@RAICES) 1545425754
In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that blocked the Trump administration's asylum rule from taking effect. Conservative Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices in denying the Trump administration's plea to allow the policy to move forward, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the White House.
As the ACLU noted in its legal brief to the Supreme Court, those "fleeing persecution" in their home countries are "desperate" and often have "no understanding of the option to apply for asylum at a port, are forced by gangs and others to enter away from designated ports of entry, or cannot realistically travel to such ports because of danger and distance."
While noting that the legal battle over the Trump administration's policy is far from over, Bloomberg observed that "the high court rebuff of Trump's request to block the order suggests skepticism about the administration's legal case."
"The disputed Trump policy, designed to apply for 90 days, would effectively require all asylum claims to be made at official ports of entry," Bloomberg noted. "Federal immigration law says people may apply for asylum 'whether or not at a designated port of arrival' and 'irrespective of such alien's status.'"
In what immigrant rights groups celebrated as a significant victory over President Donald Trump's xenophobic agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the White House cannot automatically deny asylum to those who don't enter the country through an "official" border crossing.
"The Trump administration can no longer discriminate against asylum-seekers based on how they entered the country," RAICES, the largest immigration legal services non-profit in Texas, wrote on Twitter. "This government's policy of clogging ports of entry and then punishing those who cross outside is immoral. We're glad it's beginning to crumble."
\u201cBIG VICTORY: The Trump admin can no longer discriminate against asylum-seekers based on how they entered the country.\n\nThis gov's policy of clogging ports of entry & then punishing those who cross outside is immoral.\n\nWe're glad it's beginning to crumble. https://t.co/K8AQJhLbfw\u201d— RAICES (@RAICES) 1545425754
In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that blocked the Trump administration's asylum rule from taking effect. Conservative Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices in denying the Trump administration's plea to allow the policy to move forward, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the White House.
As the ACLU noted in its legal brief to the Supreme Court, those "fleeing persecution" in their home countries are "desperate" and often have "no understanding of the option to apply for asylum at a port, are forced by gangs and others to enter away from designated ports of entry, or cannot realistically travel to such ports because of danger and distance."
While noting that the legal battle over the Trump administration's policy is far from over, Bloomberg observed that "the high court rebuff of Trump's request to block the order suggests skepticism about the administration's legal case."
"The disputed Trump policy, designed to apply for 90 days, would effectively require all asylum claims to be made at official ports of entry," Bloomberg noted. "Federal immigration law says people may apply for asylum 'whether or not at a designated port of arrival' and 'irrespective of such alien's status.'"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.