Reinstatement of the turnback policy would ‘be a moral disaster, not just a legal error,’ U.S. bishops said. The court is set to hear oral arguments March 24.
The Supreme Court will consider whether the federal government must inspect and process asylum seekers rather than turn them away to wait in Mexico.
The court is set to hear arguments March 24 on whether migrants who present themselves at a U.S. port of entry but are stopped on the Mexican side of the border are legally considered to have “arrived in the United States” and therefore have the right to seek asylum.
The plaintiffs in Noem v. Al Otro Lado argue turning away asylum-seekers violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees with them.
The USCCB wrote in an amicus curiae brief: “The turnback policy is not just a flawed piece of statutory interpretation but an historical aberration — one that, during the period it was enforced, left vulnerable asylum seekers stranded in encampments on the border while lawfully trying to seek asylum at a port of entry.”
Turning away asylum seekers meant they “suffered predation from gangs, malnutrition, and inadequate shelter,
