US Supreme Court expands power over asylum and green‑card holder admissions

In a 6‑3 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that migrants intercepted before physically entering the country have not “arrived” and therefore cannot invoke statutory asylum protections. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, affirmed the government’s authority to refuse entry at official ports of entry, reviving a policy first used during the Obama administration. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the dissent, arguing that individuals presenting themselves at lawful entry points have begun the asylum process and should not be barred solely because they have not crossed the physical border.

In a separate 6‑3 ruling, the Court upheld the administration’s broader discretion to treat returning lawful permanent residents as “applicants for admission” when they re‑enter the United States. The case of Muk Choi Lau, a green‑card holder placed on immigration parole after a trip to China, demonstrated that officials need not present clear and convincing evidence of a crime before classifying a resident as seeking admission. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion; Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented. Both decisions enlarge executive authority over immigration enforcement.