The Supreme Court agreed on Friday, Nov. 13, 2026, to hear *Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services*, a challenge to the Trump administration’s suspension of asylum at the southern border. The justices limited review to whether Proclamation 10888 and its implementing guidance are lawful and whether a federal law bars class-wide relief ordered by a lower court, according to court documents.

The justices limited their review to two questions: whether Proclamation 10888, titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” and its implementing guidance are lawful, and whether a federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1), bars the class-wide relief ordered by a lower court, according to court documents. The court declined to take up the government’s request to weigh in on whether the class of challengers violates class-action rules, according to SCOTUSblog.

The challenge was filed on Feb. 3, 2025, by RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, along with 13 individuals who say they faced persecution or torture in their home countries, according to hngn and SCOTUSblog.

The case is expected to be argued in spring 2027, with a decision by the end of the court’s term in June 2027, according to hngn. The government’s main brief is due Monday, Dec. 28, 2026, unless extended, according to The Rio Times. No argument date has been set, and the asylum restrictions remain in force while the case proceeds.

President Donald Trump issued the proclamation on Jan. 20, 2025, declaring “an invasion is ongoing at the southern border” and suspending the entry of noncitizens “engaged in the invasion” under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to SCOTUSblog. The proclamation indicated that such noncitizens could no longer seek protections such as asylum, and the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance barring any noncitizens from applying for asylum and providing for quick removal without some procedural protections, according to SCOTUSblog. The administration has kept the policy in force while litigation proceeds, so the restrictions remain in effect during the case, according to hngn and The Rio Times.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss certified a class of immigrants subject to the proclamation, found the DHS guidance unlawful, threw it out, and barred officials from implementing it, according to SCOTUSblog.

On April 24, 2026, a divided D.C. Circuit panel largely upheld Moss’s ruling, with Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Cornelia Pillard in the majority and Judge Justin Walker dissenting in part, according to SCOTUSblog. The D.C. Circuit kept its ruling on hold while the government appealed, allowing the asylum restrictions to remain in force, according to SCOTUSblog and The Rio Times.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “suspending the illegal entry of aliens and precluding their access to asylum” is “[t]he most important and effective pieces of the President’s response,” and that the proclamation “rests on a commonsense understanding of the President’s inherent and delegated powers to exclude aliens,” according to SCOTUSblog. Sauer said Trump acted within his authority in preemptively denying asylum applications from those who violate the entry suspension and in directing that the government need not accept “futile” applications, according to SCOTUSblog. The government argued that asylum is “a purely discretionary benefit” and that lower courts lacked power to issue class-wide orders under federal immigration law, according to The Rio Times. The government added that border encounters fell 93% after the proclamation, to the lowest levels since the 1960s, and that the asylum limits are central to that result, according to The Rio Times.

The challengers urged the justices to deny review, saying the D.C. Circuit “correctly held that the President may not invent by fiat a new removal system that eviscerates the protections Congress mandated by statute,” according to SCOTUSblog. They countered the administration’s “unprecedented crisis” claim, stating that by January 2025, border apprehensions had returned to historically routine levels, down over 90% from their peak, according to SCOTUSblog. They argued that federal immigration law provides that noncitizens “may apply” for asylum “irrespective of … status” or where and how they entered, and that the proclamation and guidance dictate that statutorily eligible noncitizens may not apply, according to SCOTUSblog. Lee Gelernt, an ACLU lawyer leading the case, said the president cannot unilaterally override the protections Congress gave people fleeing danger, according to hngn.

The asylum case is the latest addition to the court’s immigration docket, which already includes challenges to “third-party removals” and detention of immigrants without hearings, according to SCOTUSblog. On Sept. 29, 2026, the court cleared the administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own while it prepares to decide whether that policy violates federal law, according to hngn. The case is distinct from *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado* (No. 25-5), decided June 25, 2026, which held that a person standing in Mexico has not “arrive[d] in the United States” under the asylum statute until crossing the border, according to The Rio Times.

The district court ruled for the challengers on July 2, 2025; a D.C. Circuit panel paused the asylum part of that ruling on Aug. 1, 2025; the appeals court ruled against the administration in April 2026 and denied rehearing on July 23, 2026, according to The Rio Times. The government filed its petition for certiorari on Aug. 24, 2026, and the plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition on Sept. 23, 2026, according to The Rio Times. The timing adds a political layer: Republicans lost control of Congress in the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and Democrats take over both chambers in January, according to hngn.