The US Supreme Court has agreed to review the legality of President Donald Trump's restrictions on asylum access at the southern border, bringing a major immigration policy dispute before the country's highest judicial authority.
In an order issued on November 13, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's request to hear Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, also known as Mullin v. RAICES. The case is listed as No. 26-239.
Editorial Insight
Key Highlights
Important points readers should notice.
The US Supreme Court agreed to review the case on November 13, 2026.
The case is known as Mullin v. RAICES, docket number 26-239.
The dispute concerns Presidential Proclamation 10888, issued on January 20, 2025.
The proclamation suspended the entry of certain non-US citizens at the southern border and restricted access to statutory immigration protections, including asylum.
Lower federal courts ruled against the administration's position.
The Supreme Court accepted two legal questions for review.
The dispute concerns Presidential Proclamation 10888, titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion", which Trump issued on January 20, 2025, shortly after beginning his second presidential term. The proclamation was subsequently published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2025.
The measure suspended the entry of certain non-US citizens at the southern border and restricted their access to statutory immigration provisions that could allow them to remain in the country, including asylum procedures.
The administration relied on presidential authority under federal immigration law to justify the restrictions, arguing that the measures were necessary to address conditions at the US-Mexico border.
Editorial Analysis
Why This Matters
The case could have significant implications for US immigration policy and the balance of authority between the president, Congress and the federal judiciary. At the centre of the dispute is whether presidential authority to suspend the entry of foreign nationals can support restrictions on statutory immigration and asylum procedures. The Supreme Court's interpretation could influence how future administrations implement border restrictions and how federal courts review executive actions affecting immigration protections. The case also raises questions about the authority of federal courts to issue classwide relief when government policies are challenged on behalf of large groups of affected individuals. For people seeking protection in the United States, the eventual ruling could affect access to asylum-related procedures at the southern border.
However, affected individuals and immigrant-rights organisations challenged the policy, arguing that the administration had exceeded its authority by introducing procedures that bypass protections established by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The legal dispute also concerns the treatment of individuals who enter the United States despite the entry restrictions. The challengers argue that the administration cannot use the proclamation to introduce alternative removal procedures that replace protections and processes provided under federal law.
A federal district court in Washington, DC, ruled against the administration. On April 24, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the proclamation and its implementing guidance were unlawful to the extent that they circumvented statutory immigration procedures.
The administration subsequently asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
In agreeing to hear the case, the justices accepted two of the government's three questions for review.
The first question concerns whether Presidential Proclamation 10888 and its implementing guidance are lawful.
The second concerns whether Section 1252(f)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prevents federal courts from granting classwide relief affecting the operation of certain immigration provisions.
The Supreme Court did not accept the government's third question, which challenged whether the definition of the affected class complied with Article III of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The decision to hear the case does not mean that the Supreme Court has upheld or rejected Trump's asylum restrictions. The justices will examine the legal arguments before delivering a final judgment.
The challenged restrictions remain in effect while the litigation continues under the existing court arrangements.
The case is expected to be argued in spring 2027, with a final decision anticipated by the end of June 2027. The Supreme Court docket has not yet listed a specific argument date.
