The Supreme Court will consider whether the federal government should inspect and process asylum seekers rather than leaving them to wait in Mexico.
The court is set to hear arguments on March 24 over whether migrants who present themselves at a U.S. port of entry but are stopped on the Mexican side of the border are considered legally “arrived in the United States” and therefore have the right to seek asylum.
The plaintiffs in Noem v. El Otro Lado argue that turning away asylum seekers is a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees with them.
USCCB wrote in a amicus curiae brief: “The turnback policy is not just a flawed piece of statutory interpretation, but a historical aberration – one that, during the period in which it was implemented, left vulnerable asylum seekers stranded in camps at the border while legally trying to seek asylum at a port of entry.”
Turning away asylum seekers meant they “faced victimization by gangs, malnutrition and inadequate shelter, and some lost their lives. Blessing the government’s reading of the INA – and thereby opening the door to the reinstatement of the turnback policy – would therefore be a moral disaster, not merely a legal error,” Bishop wrote.
“It is not surprising that care for refugees has been a cornerstone of the Church’s teachings since its founding: Catholics believe that refugees reflect the image of Christ and are worthy of the utmost charity. Even the power of a sovereign state over its borders cannot override this fundamental duty of care – which, at the very least, requires that nations not put asylum seekers at even greater risk of harm when they reach the border to seek relief Insert,” Bishop wrote.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, asylum seekers must be present in the United States to qualify and must be fleeing imminent persecution based on religious, political, or racial discrimination. DHS says seeking asylum for economic reasons is not an acceptable norm.
Supporters of the DHS position say that section 208 The INA says asylum seekers must be in the United States to apply, not at its border checkpoint.
‘in’ vs ‘at’
Immigration author and former immigration judge Andrew Arthur said the case focused on a preposition: “in” vs. “At.” He added that a “literal Supreme Court” could issue a unanimous decision on the case, because the language, particularly the use of the preposition “in” does not allow asylum seekers to be processed on the other side of the border because they are not “in” the United States.
“The long-term effects of this case are to vindicate the authority of DHS and the restrictions at the border,” Arthur said.
American bishop special message The bishops expressed protest over “indiscriminate mass deportation of people” on immigration, approved at the 2025 Fall Plenary Assembly on November 12.
“Human dignity and national security are not in conflict,” the bishops said.
The bishops’ message also addressed their concerns over the conditions of detention centers and prayed for “an end to inhumane rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement.”
