US Supreme Court to hear landmark asylum case on border ‘turnbacks’

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week (24 March) in Noem v Al Otro Lado, a case expected to shape how the right to seek asylum applies at US borders.

Experts from the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law are among those behind an amicus brief that focuses on non-refoulement at the border, stressing that the US government must provide asylum seekers with a fair process in order to assess risks of return.

Denying such access would violate international law principles, according to 140 leading academics and experts, including Kaldor Centre Director, Professor Daniel Ghezelbash.

Kaldor Centre Professor Jane McAdam and Honorary Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill were ‘invaluable’ in the preparation of the amicus brief, the Global Strategic Litigation Council (GSLC) has noted.

Under the US government’s former Turnback Policy, border officials blocked people from seeking asylum at ports of entry and forced them to return to Mexico. This left children, families and adults stranded in dangerous conditions, often without shelter, safety or basic necessities, the GSLC notes.

McAdam said:

‘This is a highly significant case because it shows why the US’ turnback policy is in violation of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement – that is, the obligation not to send people to any place where they face a real risk of persecution or other serious harm.

‘Importantly, this principle applies at the border, which means that people seeking asylum can’t just be turned away – they must have access to a fair process.’

People are entitled to an assessment of the risks they would face if returned, and denying this would mark a what the GSLC calls a ‘radical and unjustified departure from settled principles of international law’.

The GSLC warns the case could redefine the limits of executive power at the border and determine whether asylum protections apply at points of entry:

‘The Supreme Court’s ruling will be critical: it will define how far executive authority can stretch when managing the border, and whether that power can override the rights and statutory requirements guaranteed by law. It will also clarify whether U.S. asylum protections apply at the border, with major implications for access to asylum for those seeking protection there.

‘If the Court sides with the government, it could open the door to future “turnback” or “wait-in-place” policies during periods of increased arrivals, weakening longstanding asylum safeguards and exposing people fleeing persecution to potentially life‑threatening harm.’

Read the full amicus brief.

Learn more from the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law.