Asylum Ruling Signals Larger Separation Of Powers Battle

Abstract

Some U.S. Supreme Court decisions answer difficult legal questions. Others reveal how the court understands the U.S. Constitution itself. The court's recent ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado does both. On its surface, the decision resolves a narrow question of statutory interpretation: whether asylum-seekers who are physically prevented by federal officials from stepping onto U.S. soil have arrived in the U.S. for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. By holding that they have not, the court permits federal officials to turn asylum-seekers away at ports of entry without providing the inspection and asylum procedures Congress requires, fundamentally reshaping access to humanitarian protection at the nation's borders.

Comments

Archived at https://perma.cc/SZM3-623J

Source Publication

LexisNexis Law360

Share

COinS