Two courts ruled Trump’s border asylum ban unlawful. It is still in force, and now the Supreme Court will decide

The US Supreme Court will decide whether a president can switch off the right to seek asylum by declaring an invasion.

The justices agreed on Friday, 13 November (US time), to hear the Trump administration’s appeal against rulings that found its ban on asylum claims at the southern border went beyond the President’s legal powers. Arguments are expected in the coming months, and a ruling is due by the end of June.

In the meantime, nothing changes at the border. The ban stays in force.

What does the ban do?

Mr Trump issued the proclamation on 20 January 2025, hours into his second term. It declared an “invasion” at the border with Mexico.

Under it, migrants caught crossing without the required paperwork can be removed quickly, without the chance to claim asylum. It also covers people who arrive at official crossings but cannot provide certain medical and criminal history information, which advocates say is often impossible for people fleeing violence.

The proclamation stays in place until the President decides the invasion has ended. It goes further than the limits on asylum that Joe Biden’s administration put in place.

Why did the lower courts reject it?

Thirteen asylum seekers and three immigrant advocacy groups brought a class action, saying people were being deported without the “credible fear” interviews the law guarantees. Those interviews are the first step for anyone who says they face persecution or torture if sent home.

In July 2025, US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington ruled that nothing in the Constitution or immigration law lets the President replace the procedures Congress set. In April this year, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld that ruling, but largely kept it from taking effect so the administration could appeal.

What does each side argue?

Solicitor-General D. John Sauer told the court the policy “rests on a commonsense understanding” of the President’s powers to keep foreigners out. He pointed to a provision that lets a president restrict entry when he judges it would harm the interests of the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union, acting for the challengers, argues the President “may not invent by fiat a new removal system” that undercuts the protections Congress wrote. The administration credits the ban with helping drive down border crossings; the challengers say crossings were already falling before Mr Trump returned.

Which way is the court leaning?

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority and has largely deferred to Mr Trump on immigration in his second term.

In June it backed the government’s power to turn away asylum seekers when border crossings are deemed too overburdened. In September it let the administration resume deporting people to countries other than their own without a chance to show the harm they might face there. In his first term, it upheld his travel ban on people from several mostly Muslim-majority countries.

But it has not given him everything. In June it blocked his executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship.

Why does it matter beyond the US?

The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol to the Refugee Convention, the same treaty framework that governs Australia’s obligations to people seeking protection. A ruling that a leader can close the asylum door by proclamation would be watched by governments everywhere that face pressure at their borders, and by the refugee advocates who challenge them.

For people waiting in northern Mexico, the case decides whether the door that closed in January 2025 opens again.