最高法院周四裁定，特朗普政府可以拒绝接近美墨边境入境口岸的寻求庇护者，推翻了下级法院的一项裁决，即该政策可能违反联邦法律和国际条约。
“我们认为，一个站在墨西哥的外国人不会因为试图踏足该国而‘抵达美国’，”塞缪尔·阿利托(Samuel Alito)法官代表法院保守派多数派写道。"一个外国人只有在越过边境时才‘到达美国’。"
6-3的决定实际上允许边境代理人关闭逃离暴力和迫害的移民的大门，甚至拒绝他们在美国寻求庇护的机会。
联邦法律规定，申请庇护的机会必须给予那些“抵达”该国的人。
虽然该政策在2021年因移民潮淹没边境口岸而被自愿取消，但政府现在有能力在必要时恢复该政策。特朗普迄今为止一直援引替代法律当局来支持他目前的边境镇压。
“当一个跑卫到达1码线时，他不会到达端区，”阿利托写道。“当一个客人敲前门时，他并没有进屋。军队不会通过在城外扎营来到达一个城市。当信件还在邮递员手中几英寸远的地方时，它就不会到达邮箱。”
在一项异议中，索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官与埃琳娜·卡根大法官和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克森一起表示，她的同事们歪曲了国会为保护弱势群体而制定的程序。
“法院今天认为，行政部门可以通过让美国移民官员站在边境并实际阻止非公民踏上美国土地来规避所有这些强制性程序。他们可能会这样做，即使寻求庇护者是在指定接收所有寻求进入该国的非公民的入境口岸的门口，”她写道。“即使寻求庇护者如果被拒绝，肯定会遭到迫害或杀害。”
索托马约尔援引了第二次世界大战期间圣路易斯号的历史，当时欧洲犹太人横渡大西洋到美国寻求安全，却被拒绝并被遣返，大多数人在大屠杀中丧生。国会颁布了1980年难民法，部分是为了解决过去的“错误”。
“今天的决定的后果是可以预见的。会有更多的人死去。更多的人会试图非法越境，有些人会成功，有些人则不会，”她写道。“更多的人会因为一些他们不能或不应该改变的事情，如他们的种族、宗教、国籍或政治观点，而回头并遭受暴力。”
Supreme Court lets Trump turn away asylum seekers at the border
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, reversing a lower court decision that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
"We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not 'arrive in the United States' by attempting, and failing, to set foot in the country," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court's conservative majority. "An alien 'arrives in the United States' only when he crosses the border."
The 6-3 decision effectively allows border agents to shut the door to migrants fleeing violence and persecution, and deny them even the chance to seek refuge in the U.S.
Federal law says the opportunity to apply for asylum must be afforded to those who "arrive in" the country.
While the policy was voluntarily rescinded in 2021 after a surge of migrants had overwhelmed border crossings, the government now has the ability to reinstate it if necessary. Trump has so far invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
"A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line," Alito wrote. "A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door. An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its walls. And a letter does not arrive in a mailbox while it remains in the mail carrier's hand just inches away."
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said her colleagues were distorting the procedures set out by Congress to protect vulnerable people.
"The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil. They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country," she wrote. "Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away."
Sotomayor invoked the history of the MS St. Louis from World War II, when European Jews sailed across the Atlantic seeking safety in the U.S., only to be turned away and sent back, where most were killed in the Holocaust. Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act, in part, to address that "mistake" of the past.
"The consequences of today's decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not," she wrote. "More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religious, nationality, or political opinion."
