WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider the legality of President Donald Trump's restrictions on access to asylum at the US-Mexico border, a hardline immigration policy his administration has credited with helping reduce border crossings.
The justices took up Trump's appeal of a lower court's ruling that found he exceeded his authority by denying migrants caught entering the country illegally the chance to apply for asylum.
The court is expected to hear arguments in the case in the coming months and rule by the end of June.
Trump, who has described the influx of migrants as an invasion, announced the new curbs just hours into his second presidential term on January 20, 2025. His policy sweeps more broadly than similar curbs put in place by his predecessor, Democratic former President Joe Biden, who limited asylum eligibility at the southern border in a bid to reduce illegal crossings.
Trump's asylum policy is one of a number of measures his administration has taken as part of his crackdown on immigration pursued since returning to office last year. Top officials have also sought to persuade other nations to join in a global campaign to roll back asylum protections in an effort to reshape the post-World War Two framework around humanitarian migration.
Under Trump's policy, migrants caught crossing the southern border illegally are barred from pursuing asylum claims. The prohibition also applies to migrants who arrive at official border crossings and lack certain medical or criminal history information, a requirement that advocates say is often impossible to meet for people fleeing violence.
Trump's proclamation announcing the asylum restrictions — and the fast-track deportation procedures they are meant to enable — said the policy would remain in effect until the Republican president determines that the "invasion at the southern border" has ended.
'CREDIBLE FEAR' INTERVIEWS
Immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the policy on behalf of would-be asylum seekers who say they were denied a "credible fear" interview by US immigration officials before facing deportation. Such interviews are meant to determine whether migrants seeking asylum would face persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
A Washington, DC-based federal judge ruled in favor of the immigrant rights groups in July 2025. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in April upheld the judge's ruling but largely agreed to block the decision from taking effect to let the administration appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has been largely deferential to Trump in his second presidential term in challenges to his immigration policies.
In June, the court handed Trump a victory by backing the federal government's authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials deem US-Mexico border crossings too overburdened to handle additional claims.
In September, the court let the administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the chance to show the harms they may face, bolstering a tool his administration has used for rapid expulsions as part of his immigration crackdown. The justices are due to hear arguments over the legality of that policy on December 9.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
