{"id":232447,"date":"2026-03-23T12:15:09","date_gmt":"2026-03-23T12:15:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/232447\/"},"modified":"2026-03-23T12:15:09","modified_gmt":"2026-03-23T12:15:09","slug":"supreme-court-poised-to-hear-san-diego-border-policy-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/232447\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court poised to hear San Diego border-policy case"},"content":{"rendered":"

The M.S. St. Louis set sail in 1939 from Germany carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. The plan was for the ship\u2019s passengers to disembark in Cuba and then await entry into the United States, but the Cuban government revoked the passengers\u2019 landing permits. Even as the ship sailed just off the coast of Miami, the U.S. also refused to accept the refugees. The St. Louis eventually returned to Europe<\/a>, where four nations accepted its passengers following desperate negotiations.<\/p>\n

But Nazi forces soon overran much of the continent, and by the end of World War II, at least 254 of the ship\u2019s passengers had died<\/a> in the Holocaust.<\/p>\n

In the years that followed, the U.S. and other nations around the world agreed to international treaties and passed domestic laws aimed at ensuring they would never again turn away vulnerable people nor return them to the countries where they faced persecution.<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a San Diego case<\/a> that deals with whether the U.S. government violated the very asylum and immigration laws adopted in the wake of World War II and the St. Louis tragedy.<\/p>\n

The case is centered on a policy in which immigration officers systematically blocked and turned away asylum seekers beginning in 2016 at ports of entry in San Diego and elsewhere along the U.S.-Mexico border. The government describes it as \u201cmetering,\u201d but the group that sued calls it an illegal turnback policy.<\/p>\n

A San Diego federal judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled the policy violated federal laws<\/a>, but the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit\u2019s ruling<\/a>. While the legal question of the case deals narrowly with what it means to \u201carrive in\u201d the U.S. and thus be eligible to seek asylum, those on both sides of the issue agree the case has broader implications for immigration and asylum law and the nation\u2019s moral duty to take in those who are fleeing persecution.<\/p>\n

On one side of the case is Al Otro Lado, a San Diego- and Tijuana-based immigrant-assistance organization that filed the original lawsuit. Those who have filed amicus curiae, or \u201cfriend of the court,\u201d briefs in support of Al Otro Lado\u2019s positions include Democratic members of Congress, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International USA and religious groups such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Supreme Court rules that these turnback policies are acceptable \u2026 what it\u2019s basically saying is we can ignore our legal obligations, and that should send a chill down all of our spines,\u201d Naomi Steinberg, the vice president of U.S. policy and advocacy for HIAS, a global Jewish humanitarian organization that supports refugees and submitted an amicus curiae brief<\/a>, said in an interview. \u201cIt would be another layer to making it very, very difficult \u2014 if not impossible \u2014 for people to be able to exercise what was once their legal right to seek protection in this country.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"OnOn July 16, 2019, families gather at El Chaparral port of entry in Tijuana to add their names to what became known as the notebook, an informal list of migrants who have checked in and have been assigned a waiting number for when they can present themselves to a U.S. border official to ask for an asylum screening. (Nelvin C. Cepeda \/ The San Diego Union-Tribune)<\/p>\n

On the other side is the Trump administration, which was supported with amicus briefs from a group of Republican members of Congress, including San Diego-area Rep. Darrell Issa, as well as several conservative groups, such as Citizens United, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.<\/p>\n

Those groups view the case as a misguided attempt by unelected judges to harness Trump\u2019s executive powers along the border.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s been a pattern of judges trying to enjoin the Trump administration from implementing its immigration policies,\u201d Michael Boos, the executive vice president and general counsel for Citizens United<\/a>, said in an interview. \u201cThis is just one aspect of that campaign where judges are seeking to substitute their policy judgments for those of the president, and of course, that\u2019s not the proper role of the judiciary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tuesday\u2019s hearing comes at a time when the situation at the border looks vastly different than 10 years ago, when the \u201cmetering\u201d or turnback policy at the heart of the case was first enacted. Since then, immigrant arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border fell sharply<\/a>, beginning at the end of the Biden administration and continuing through the first year of President Donald Trump\u2019s second term, due to stricter policies. But the case deals with issues that remain relevant \u2014 Al Otro Lado filed a new lawsuit last year<\/a> alleging that even without \u201cmetering,\u201d Trump\u2019s anti-immigration policies have made it nearly impossible for individuals to seek asylum.<\/p>\n

A disputed policy<\/p>\n

The policy at the center of the case began as an informal practice at the tail end of the Obama administration, when immigration officers at the San Ysidro Port of Entry dealt with a large influx of Haitian asylum seekers by turning them away when the officers deemed the port to be at capacity. The practice later spread to other U.S.-Mexico ports and was made official policy by the first Trump administration.<\/p>\n

The Biden administration eventually ended the policy, but not before Al Otro Lado and several individual asylum seekers had challenged it in court. The federal laws in question state, in relevant part, that any immigrant \u201cwho is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States \u2026 at a designated port of arrival \u2026 may apply for asylum.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"AnAn immigrant volunteer posted the newest number sign for the next person in line to be taken to the U.S. for an asylum interview on Sept. 13, 2019, in Tijuana. (John Gibbins \/ The San Diego Union-Tribune)<\/p>\n

The Trump administration argues that arriving in the U.S. should be defined literally as stepping foot on U.S. soil, while Al Otro Lado argues that an immigrant who arrives at a port of entry has met the legal standard even if he or she hasn\u2019t technically stepped across the international boundary.<\/p>\n

In a 2-1 opinion, the 9th Circuit\u00a0ruled in favor of Al Otro Lado, finding that the relevant destination is the border where an asylum seeker can speak with a government official. \u201cA person who presents herself to an official at the border has therefore reached her destination \u2014 she has \u2018arrive[d],\u2019\u201d the 9th Circuit ruled.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.\u00a0\u201cIn ordinary English, a person \u2018arrives in\u2019 a country only when he comes within its borders,\u201d attorneys for the government wrote in their brief to the Supreme Court. \u201cA person does not \u2018arrive in the United States\u2019 if he is stopped in Mexico.\u201d<\/p>\n

Government attorneys cited a 1993 Supreme Court case that held that U.S. immigration laws do not extend to refugees detained at sea attempting to reach the U.S. \u201cThe immigration laws at issue here likewise do not protect aliens who are stopped on land before reaching U.S. soil,\u201d the government attorneys argued.<\/p>\n

Two key legal principles<\/p>\n

Based on the briefs submitted to the court, it appears likely the case could largely hinge on two legal principles: surplusage and extraterritoriality. Surplusage refers to language in a law that is unnecessary, irrelevant or redundant, while extraterritoriality refers to U.S. federal law applying only within the U.S. and not outside its borders, unless specified.<\/p>\n

Al Otro Lado\u2019s legal team and its supporters argue that the statute in question already allows a noncitizen to seek asylum if they are \u201cpresent in the United States.\u201d So they argue the phrase \u201carrives in\u201d the U.S. must have a different meaning, or else it would be redundant.<\/p>\n

\"FILE.People line up to cross into the United States to begin the process of applying for asylum near the San Ysidro Port of Entry in Tijuana on July 26, 2018. (AP Photo\/Gregory Bull, File)<\/p>\n

\u201cDuring 9th Circuit argument, we kept coming back to the surplusage argument, which the 9th Circuit ended up relying on,\u201d Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and co-counsel in the Supreme Court case, said in an interview. \u201cIf people have to step foot onto U.S. territory \u2026 they become physically present in the United States, and so the \u2018arriving in\u2019 language would be redundant. So, \u2018arrives in\u2019 has to mean something other than physically \u2018present in,\u2019 and we think the 9th Circuit is right that it refers to people who are at the border, whether they\u2019re a little bit over on the Mexican side or a little bit over on the U.S. side.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an amicus brief, Republican lawmakers argued<\/a> that the 9th Circuit\u2019s interpretation \u201cdefies logic,\u201d and that Congress was reiterating rather than being redundant when it passed the laws in question.<\/p>\n

\u201cCongress said not once \u2014 but twice \u2014 that to seek asylum, the alien must be \u2018in the United States,\u2019\u201d argued Issa and the other Republicans. \u201cIf there is one takeaway from that text, it is that Congress was excluding those who are not \u2018in\u2019 the United States \u2026 The (9th Circuit) employed the presumption against redundancy to make the most important word in the statute say the opposite of what it always means.\u201d<\/p>\n

Democratic lawmakers, including California Sen. Alex Padilla, submitted their own amicus brief in support of Al Otro Lado<\/a>, arguing it was Congress\u2019 intent for the two phrases to refer to two different classes of people. Their brief argued the government\u2019s preferred interpretation would \u201cstrip an entire statutory phrase of any independent meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then there is the issue of extraterritoriality. The government and its supporters argue that because the laws in question only apply within U.S. borders, they therefore cannot apply to someone still in Mexico who has not set foot on U.S. soil.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Ninth Circuit \u2026 forces the United States to accept asylum applications from aliens located in foreign sovereign territory,\u201d Issa and the other Republican lawmakers argued in their amicus brief. \u201cNot only has Congress expressly declined to create that very right \u2026 but doing so would risk interference with Mexico\u2019s own asylum system for aliens present within its borders.\u201d<\/p>\n

Al Otro Lado argues that the turnback policy involves U.S. immigration officers operating on U.S. soil, not in foreign territory. \u201cBecause that is a domestic application of the provisions, the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the presumption (against extraterritoriality) \u2018has no role to play\u2019 in this case,\u201d the attorneys for Al Otro Lado argued in their brief.<\/p>\n

Practical and moral arguments<\/p>\n

Beyond the relevant legal arguments in the case, both sides and their supporters presented the Supreme Court with practical and moral arguments for ruling in their favor.<\/p>\n

The Republican lawmakers argued that not allowing metering \u201cinvites chaos\u201d the next time large groups of asylum seekers begin arriving at the border. Citizens United, which filed its amicus brief in conjunction with fellow conservative groups America\u2019s Future and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that Trump has broad power to secure the border how he sees fit.<\/p>\n

\"FILEIn this Jan. 25, 2019, file photo, a migrant looks on with his children as they wait to hear if their number is called to apply for asylum in the United States at the border in Tijuana. (AP Photo\/Gregory Bull, File)<\/p>\n

\u201cThe lower federal courts cannot be allowed to continue to place impediments in the way of a President who seeks to enforce our Nation\u2019s borders,\u201d the groups argued.<\/p>\n

Al Otro Lado, HIAS and other groups who provided assistance to the asylum seekers who were turned back at the border argued this case is about much more than the narrow legal definition of a few words. They say they worked with immigrants who were sexually abused, kidnapped and held for ransom after being turned away.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe irony is that the government claims over and over that what they want is an organized process, and to alleviate the chaos at the border, but what they\u2019re doing through the turnback policy \u2026 is they\u2019re creating more chaos at the border,\u201d Crow said. \u201cBecause people end up having to navigate in other ways, and they end up crossing between ports of entry, because they simply can\u2019t wait any longer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Steinberg said HIAS, which was founded in the late 1800s as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, was involved in those desperate negotiations to find the St. Louis passengers a safe refuge. She said the tragedy of so many of the ship\u2019s passengers dying in the Holocaust is a \u201cclear and undeniable and deeply painful reminder of what it looks like and what the real human costs can be when a country turns its back on people seeking safety and protection.\u201d<\/p>\n

Oral arguments can be heard live on the Supreme Court\u2019s website<\/a> and are expected to begin around 8 a.m. Tuesday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The M.S. St. Louis set sail in 1939 from Germany carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":232448,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[1697,7,1312,14,181,23,100,74,84,76,75,1696],"class_list":{"0":"post-232447","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-diego","8":"tag-baja-california","9":"tag-california","10":"tag-courts","11":"tag-immigration","12":"tag-latest-headlines","13":"tag-local-news","14":"tag-news","15":"tag-san-diego","16":"tag-san-diego-county","17":"tag-san-diego-headlines","18":"tag-san-diego-news","19":"tag-top-stories-sdut"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232447","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232447\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/232448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}