Supreme Court to Review Trump Administration’s Border Asylum Limits in RAICES Case

The Supreme Court agreed on November 13, 2026, to review the Trump administration’s border asylum restrictions in Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, known as Mullin v. RAICES. The case concerns President Donald Trump’s proclamation and related Department of Homeland Security guidance. The restrictions remain in effect while the appeal proceeds.

The justices will consider whether the policy is lawful and whether the district judge could grant broad relief to a class of affected people. The D.C. Circuit has put its ruling on hold. Oral argument is expected in spring 2027, with a decision expected by the end of the term.

The order blocks asylum and withholding claims at the southern border

Trump issued the proclamation on January 20, 2025, declaring an invasion at the southern border and suspending entry for noncitizens described as engaged in it. The restrictions are tied to the president’s finding that the invasion continues.

The order bars people who cross outside ports of entry or without required documents from seeking asylum or withholding of removal. The latter protection can prevent removal to a country where a person faces persecution or torture.

DHS guidance also barred asylum applications and directed officials to quickly remove people who entered despite the suspension, without some statutory procedural protections. The case concerns that proclamation and guidance. It does not involve a ruling that every asylum applicant nationwide has lost access to the process.

The justices will weigh legality and the district judge’s power

The Court accepted two questions. One asks whether the proclamation and DHS guidance comply with immigration law. The other concerns whether U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss could issue relief for a class of people affected by the policy, rather than limit the order to the named plaintiffs.

The administration argues that federal immigration law restricts lower courts from ordering officials to implement specified immigration provisions. Challengers say that restriction does not apply to the laws underpinning the proclamation. The justices declined to take up the government’s separate challenge to whether the class satisfies class-action rules.

The government relies on Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the president authority to suspend entry. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the president could direct officials not to accept applications he considers destined to be denied.

Lower courts rejected the policy, but their relief remains on hold

Moss recognized a class of people subject to the proclamation, found the DHS guidance unlawful and barred officials from implementing it. A D.C. Circuit panel initially paused part of that order. A different panel largely upheld it in April 2026.

Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard. The judges distinguished the president’s authority to suspend entry from a claimed authority to bypass statutory removal procedures and asylum applications.

Childs wrote:

“Barring foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States from applying for asylum and, if they make the statutory showing that they are eligible, from being considered to receive it cannot be squared with the statute.”

Judge Justin Walker dissented in part on whether the government could dispense with the application process if it would deny all applications. He agreed, however, that officials could not remove people to countries where they would face persecution or strip away mandatory procedures protecting against that result.

The appeals court later kept its ruling on hold during the government’s appeal. That stay allows the restrictions to continue while the justices consider the case.

The plaintiffs describe removals, detention and fear of return

The lawsuit includes 13 individuals who say they faced persecution or torture, along with three immigrant legal service providers: RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. The ACLU and partner organizations brought the challenge.

Keren Zwick, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, said the plaintiffs included people who fled political imprisonment and threats from the Taliban. She said some were removed to third countries and pushed back to places they had fled, while others faced prolonged detention.

Nicolas Palazzo, interim executive director of Las Americas, said the ruling could determine whether people represented in El Paso and along the border find protection or return to danger. Faisal Al-Juburi, co-CEO of the plaintiff organization, framed the case as a test of executive power.

“By agreeing to hear this case, the Supreme Court faces a critical constitutional responsibility: to uphold the limits of executive power and make clear that no president is beyond congressional authority.”

The government and challengers dispute the right to apply

The administration says asylum is discretionary and argues that it need not accept applications it would reject. It also contends that suspending entry is a central tool for controlling the border.

The government says the order reduced border encounters by 93% and freed resources for national security and public safety. Challengers counter that apprehensions had already fallen more than 90% from their peak before the proclamation took effect.

Their legal argument centers on the difference between seeking asylum and receiving it. Challengers say federal law allows people to apply regardless of how they entered, while the executive branch decides whether to grant protection after considering individual claims. The administration says the president’s entry-suspension authority supports the restrictions.

DHS General Counsel James Percival said the administration looked forward to presenting its arguments to the justices. The case is one of several immigration disputes on the Court’s docket, which also includes challenges involving third-country removals and detention without a bond hearing.

Last term, the justices ruled for the administration in a separate asylum case from the first Trump administration. That decision could allow a metering policy, which turns people back before they reach the border, to be revived. The administration has not announced that as a plan in this case.

Arguments are expected in spring 2027

The Court has not scheduled a specific oral argument date. Arguments are expected in spring 2027, and a decision is expected by the end of the term, around June or July 2027.

There is no procedural step for affected people to take based on the review grant alone. People seeking protection and their representatives can watch the Court’s argument calendar and eventual decision on the proclamation and the scope of relief.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.