The Supreme Court's decision to restrict asylum applications has been met with mixed reactions, with some arguing that it may have unintended consequences, such as increasing illegal crossings.
According to the dissenting justices and an immigration nonprofit involved in the case, the ruling could create a perverse incentive for migrants to attempt to enter the United States illegally, rather than waiting at designated ports of entry.
The Supreme Court held in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that migrants must physically set foot in the United States to be eligible for asylum, reversing lower court rulings that had allowed certain asylum seekers to apply even if they were turned away at ports of entry.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Al Otro Lado argued that this decision contradicts the court's previous recognition that immigration statutes and procedures should not create a perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location.
The nonprofit cited a 2018 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General, which found that metering had unintended consequences, including leading some asylum seekers to cross the border illegally.
The conservative majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito, downplayed the possibility of increased illegal crossings, arguing that metering does not permanently bar anyone from arriving in the United States and applying for asylum.
However, Sotomayor countered that Congress was unlikely to devise a system in which asylum is available to those who unlawfully set foot over the border, but not to those who attempt to comply with the law and are physically blocked from entering at a port of entry.
It remains unclear whether the Department of Homeland Security has prepared for the potential uptick in asylum seekers attempting to cross the border illegally.
The director of litigation at the Federation for American Immigration Reform argued that the federal government's focus on border security will help deter illegal crossings, but others disagree.
As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen what the long-term effects of the Supreme Court's decision will be.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.
