Supreme Court Today: Immigration Advocates Tell Justices Trump’s Turnback Policy Violated Law

Thousands denied right to seek asylum and forced back into danger; case has implications for refugee rights

March 24, 2026, Washington, D.C. – Immigration advocates argued today before the Supreme Court that the Trump administration’s turnback policy violated federal immigration law. Under the now-defunct policy, immigration officers at official border crossings physically and indefinitely blocked people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil, flouting their legal responsibility to inspect and process those requesting asylum. 

“For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. “Yet this Administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim. Nothing in the law supports that result.”  

The turnback policy, euphemistically dubbed “metering” by government officials, broke with longstanding practice and violated the law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to languish in hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the peril they had fled.

In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization that provides free legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants, and a group of asylum seekers brought a class action suit challenging the policy, which the courts ruled unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the policy unlawful.

“The right to seek asylum is not a policy preference or a loophole— it is a promise to human beings in their most desperate hour, a promise forged after the world witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust and said ‘never again’. Seeking asylum is not like taking a number at a deli counter and waiting for your turn,” said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Border Rights Project Director at Al Otro Lado, plaintiff in the case. “The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient. We brought this case because the United States made a legal and moral commitment to protect people fleeing persecution. The question before the Court is whether that promise still means something — or whether it can be discarded when it becomes politically uncomfortable.”

For over a century, under our immigration laws, government officials have been required to inspect people seeking asylum who present themselves at designated ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border – as they must inspect all noncitizens seeking admission to the United States. This requirement ensures that the U.S. government does not send vulnerable people back to danger without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.

“The government’s turnback policy ran roughshod over our laws and treaty obligations. It fueled chaos and dysfunction at the southern border. And it was a complete humanitarian catastrophe, returning thousands of vulnerable refugees to grave harm,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “For far too many, the turnback policy was a death sentence.We are here at the Supreme Court today for them, and for all people who continue to look to the United States as a beacon of hope, as a place where the persecuted may find safe haven. We will never stop fighting for the rights of people seeking safety at our nation’s doorstep.”

“We hope the Court rejects the administration’s cynical attempt to manipulate the meaning of the border to evade the most fundamental protections of international law and to continue to exile vulnerable asylum seekers,” said Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Our humanitarian treaty obligations, forged out of the horrors of WWII, are too important to suffer from the whims of CBP.”

“President Trump’s effort to abandon asylum seekers fleeing dangerous circumstances in fear for their lives is an unlawful overreach that imperils thousands of people – including children – in dire circumstances,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “Democracy Forward is proud to work with these brave plaintiffs and our partners to protect the rights of people seeking asylum.”

“The Trump administration’s illegal turnback policy has flouted both U.S. and international law, all while creating massive dysfunction at our southern border,” said Rebecca Cassler, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council. “But most importantly, we cannot forget the people at the heart of this case — the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers who were sent back to danger, and in some cases, death. They deserve justice most of all.” 

For a recording of the press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court following arguments, see here.

For a recording of the interfaith vigil held outside the Court earlier this morning, see here.

For more about the case, see the campaign website, No Turning Back.

###

Al Otro Lado provides holistic legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana through a multidisciplinary, client-centered, harm reduction-based practice.  They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and people seeking asylum.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications.

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of courageous refugees seeking asylum in the United States. With strategic focus and unparalleled legal expertise, CGRS champions the most challenging cases, fights for due process, and promotes policies that deliver safety and justice for refugees.

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. 

The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. 

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan, public interest organization within Georgetown Law. ICAP engages in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect our democratic processes.

The post Supreme Court Today: Immigration Advocates Tell Justices Trump’s Turnback Policy Violated Law appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/kxIfC83
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Federal Court Blocks Significant Pieces of Administration’s Sweeping Immigration Appeals Rule That Eliminates Meaningful Judicial Review

Order Halts Implementation of Dangerous Steps that Would Have Dismantled Safeguards at the Board of Immigration Appeals

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order late last night in Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review et al., blocking significant pieces of the Trump-Vance administration’s new policy that sought to eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 

Plaintiffs in the case include Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and National Immigrant Justice Center. Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and National Immigrant Justice Center represent the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit and motion for preliminary relief challenge the February 6, 2026, Interim Final Rule (IFR), “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was set to take effect today, March 9, 2026. The IFR would have imposed sweeping changes that would have eviscerated noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases that have now been blocked, including:

• Reduce the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days;
• Require summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote within 10 days to accept the case for review; and
• Permit dismissal decisions before transcripts are created or records are transmitted.

“At a time when the due process rights of immigrants are under attack, this ruling prevents the BIA from reaching the point of near self-destruction,” said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. “We hope that this decision is the first step of many steps in ensuring that immigration courts reach decisions based on the law rather than on pre-determined outcomes.”

 “Today’s ruling preserves a vital avenue for judicial review in removal proceedings,” said Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, “And reminds government agencies to follow proper procedures when attempting to make sweeping changes to regulations.  

“This ruling keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case,” said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal. Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.” 

“Today, the court has again held the federal government to its foundational responsibility to afford basic fairness and due process to all whose rights it seeks to curtail,” said Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS. “We are grateful to our counsel in this case, and proud to stand with our co-plaintiffs to work for a fair immigration system.”

“Today’s ruling is an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel,” said Mary Georgevich, Senior Litigation Attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “While imperfect, the Board of Immigration Appeals is the body that Congress has mandated to review deportation orders when the immigration courts get it wrong. Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda. We are grateful the court seemed to see this proposed rule for what it was and is ruling to uphold both due process and rule of law.” 

“Today’s decision makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations,” said Erez Reuveni, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward, who presented the oral argument. “Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights. This is another demonstration that litigation is powerful. We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable.”

“This order protects a critical safeguard in our immigration system: the ability to appeal a court decision,” said Suchita Mathur, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council. “This rule would have led to the rushed deportations of untold people before their cases could even be properly reviewed. Today’s decision helps protect basic fairness in our immigration courts.”

The IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. By requiring summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.

The legal team at Democracy Forward includes Erez Reuveni, Allyson Scher, Catherine Carroll, and Robin Thurston. Counsel at American Immigration Council include Michelle Lapointe and Suchi Mathur.

Read the opinion here and the order here.

The post Federal Court Blocks Significant Pieces of Administration’s Sweeping Immigration Appeals Rule That Eliminates Meaningful Judicial Review appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/ewy4Omg
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Dear Immigrant: What the Visa Does Not Give You

Letter 03

Re: What the Visa Does Not Give You

Dear Immigrant,

The visa gives you permission to be present. It does not give you belonging, safety, stability, or the right to be treated with dignity. Those things are separate from the visa and some of them are not guaranteed by anything.

I want to be precise about what legal status gives you and what it does not, because the conflation of the two — the assumption that the visa solves the problem rather than simply opening a door — is one of the most common and most damaging misunderstandings I have seen immigrants carry.

Legal status means the government has agreed to let you be here under certain conditions. It does not mean the society has agreed to welcome you. It does not mean your employer will treat you fairly, your landlord will maintain your apartment, your colleagues will include you, your neighbors will acknowledge you. These things happen or they do not happen based on the specific people involved and the specific conditions of the place you have arrived in. The visa is not a guarantee of any of them.

The gap between legal permission to be present and actual belonging is the gap you will spend years trying to close. Some immigrants close it. Some do not, and not because they failed but because the society they arrived in was not structured to receive them fully. Both outcomes are possible. The visa does not determine which one.

Know what you have when you have the visa. Know what you still need to build. The visa is the beginning of the work, not the completion of it.

The door is open. What is behind it is still to be determined.

From the other side of several doors,
A former immigrant

dearimmigrant.com

Legal Groups Sue to Block Rule Gutting Immigration Appeals

Emergency Filing Seeks Court Order to Halt Implementation of Interim Final Rule that Dismantles Safeguards at the Board of Immigration Appeals

Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2026 — The American Immigration Council and a coalition of other legal groups, including the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and National Immigrant Justice Center, filed a lawsuit and emergency motion today to block a new interim final rule issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) that would effectively eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the February 6, 2026, Interim Final Rule (IFR) titled Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is set to take effect on March 9, 2026.

As detailed in the complaint, the IFR imposes sweeping changes that would eviscerate noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases, including:

• Reduce the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days;
• Require summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote within 10 days to accept the case for review;
• Permit dismissal decisions before transcripts are created or records are transmitted;
• Impose simultaneous 20-day briefing schedules with extensions allowed only in narrow “exceptional circumstances”;
• Eliminate reply briefs unless specifically invited; and
• Impose rigid case completion deadlines and concentrate decision-making authority in agency leadership.

“The BIA Interim Final Rule makes a mockery of due process. In addition to taking away virtually any benefit the BIA could provide immigrants, it will wreak havoc on people with cases in immigration court or federal appellate courts,” said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. “Litigants who are children, are detained, do not have a lawyer, have disabilities, or speak rare languages will be disproportionately harmed by this Interim Final Rule.”

“The Interim Final Rule creates a barrier to appellate review in removal proceedings and strikes at the heart of due process,” said Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services. “The Rule will result in the deportation of people who are eligible for immigration relief — people who have valid legal claims that an immigration judge got it wrong — simply because the Board of Immigration Appeals will no longer be an avenue to fairly review their cases.”

“This interim final rule completely decimates the process to appeal a case in front of the BIA,” said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “It will render the vast majority of immigrants unable to appeal their cases and will be particularly harmful to those who most need the recourse of an appeal process, including pro se litigants, vulnerable children, Indigenous language speakers, and people in immigration detention. It will be nearly impossible for most detained pro se individuals to submit a notice of appeal in just 10 days, and without the ability to appeal, many people will be unjustly deported back to dangerous or even life-threatening conditions.” 

“Our clients deserve a fair chance in the immigration court system,” said Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS.  “Without access to a meaningful appeal process, people who have fled persecution and violence could face dangerous consequences, including the risk of being sent back to a place that is not safe for them.  We are proud to join this legal challenge, and to take a stand against a policy change that will have seismic impact on the ability of legal service providers such as HIAS to support immigrants in navigating a complex and ever-changing legal system.

““It is hard to overstate the potential human toll of the changes proposed in this rule,” said Lisa Koop, director of legal services at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which is co-counsel and an organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Curtailing due process in this manner guarantees that legal services providers like ours will be less able to help our clients defend against unjust deportation, and many people who would otherwise be eligible for asylum or other legal status in the United States will never have the opportunity to pursue protection under our laws.”

According to the filings, the IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. Plaintiffs argue that by requiring summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.

Plaintiffs argue the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from deprivation of liberty without due process of law. They are asking the court to block the rule’s effective date and prevent implementation while the case proceeds.

The organizations are seeking a preliminary relief to prevent the rule from taking effect on March 9, 2026, and to keep it blocked while the litigation proceeds.

The case is Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.

View the complaint here.

View the stay motion here.

The post Legal Groups Sue to Block Rule Gutting Immigration Appeals appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/WQ5RZrb
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

How to Reclaim Your Lost Canadian Citizenship Under Bill C-3

Many people around the world may now qualify for Canadian citizenship because of recent changes to Canadian law. Bill C-3 corrects past citizenship rules and allows many individuals to reclaim citizenship that was previously lost or denied.

The post How to Reclaim Your Lost Canadian Citizenship Under Bill C-3 appeared first on Canadim.

from Canadim https://ift.tt/CAtYflh
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant