The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether President Trump can bar migrants arriving at the southern border from applying for asylum, setting up arguments on another divisive policy the White House sees as critical to its anti immigration agenda. The appeal will almost certainly be heard early next year and decided before July.
Why it matters
The case is Mullin v RAICES, and it challenges Proclamation 10888, which Trump signed on his first day back in office. The proclamation declared that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border and suspended entry for migrants engaged in the invasion, restricting them from invoking asylum protections in federal law until the president finds the invasion has ceased.
Lower courts found the policy unlawful. A federal appeals court in April upheld a district court decision that found the administration effort violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which specifically allows migrants to claim asylum. The Supreme Court agreed to answer two questions: whether the proclamation is lawful, and whether federal judges can grant relief covering an entire class of migrants.
What happens next
The ban stays in effect while the case goes on. The asylum related parts of the lower court judgment have been on hold since August 2025, and the grant does not change anything on the ground today. What it does is put two questions with consequences well beyond this policy before the Court, including the scope of presidential power over immigration.
For now, the case joins other immigration disputes on the docket, including a challenge to deporting migrants to third countries, which will be heard on December 9. Arguments in the asylum case are expected in spring 2027, with a decision by the end of June. The ruling will define what a president can do at the border.
The case also matters beyond immigration. The two questions the Court agreed to answer cover the scope of presidential power and the power of federal judges to grant relief to a whole class of people at once. The answers will shape not just the asylum policy but every future claim that a president has overstepped. The Court has been largely deferential to Trump on immigration in his second term, and the 6 to 3 conservative majority will be watched for whether that deference extends to a proclamation that lower courts found unlawful.
