The Supreme Court this week heard arguments in the case Noem v. Al Otro Lado in which the Church of the Brethren has joined an interfaith amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiffs. On Feb. 17, the Church of the Brethren joined with 30 other denominations and faith organizations in filing the amici curiae brief. The interfaith amicus brief was coordinated by the Kairos Center on Religion, Rights, and Justice.
The court case focuses on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority to prevent individuals from entering the United States at ports of entry to file for asylum. In the case, plaintiffs are challenging a DHS interpretation of 8 U.S.C 1158(a)(1), which states that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States…may apply for asylum.”
DHS has interpreted the language “arrives in the United States” to mean that the individual must step across the border. Under that interpretation, an individual stopped right at the border is not eligible to apply for asylum.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court. If DHS prevails, the case will effectively allow the United States to refuse asylum to all asylum seekers outside the US who seek to enter lawfully at a US border. This will have devastating consequences for the hundreds of thousands of people who flee persecution and war and seek refuge in the United States.
A press release on Noem v. Al Otro Lado from the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies reported that immigration advocates argued before the Supreme Court “that the Trump administration’s turnback policy violated federal immigration law,” said the release. “Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the policy unlawful…. For over a century, under our immigration laws, government officials have been required to inspect people seeking asylum who present themselves at designated ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border—as they must inspect all noncitizens seeking admission to the United States. This requirement ensures that the U.S. government does not send vulnerable people back to danger without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.”
Said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case: “For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations. Yet this Administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim. Nothing in the law supports that result.”
The release explained that “the turnback policy, euphemistically dubbed ‘metering’ by government officials, broke with longstanding practice and violated the law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to languish in hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the peril they had fled. In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization that provides free legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants, and a group of asylum seekers brought a class action suit challenging the policy, which the courts ruled unlawful in both 2022 and 2024.”
Said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Border Rights Project Director at Al Otro Lado: “The right to seek asylum is not a policy preference or a loophole—it is a promise to human beings in their most desperate hour, a promise forged after the world witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust and said ‘never again.’ Seeking asylum is not like taking a number at a deli counter and waiting for your turn. The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient.”
The full press release in English and Spanish is at https://cgrs.uclawsf.edu/en/news/supreme-court-today-immigration-advocates-tell-justices-trumps-turnback-policy-violated-law
Links to additional media coverage of the case: www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-asylum-seekers.html and www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/court-appears-likely-to-side-with-trump-administration-on-rights-of-asylum-seeker
A video of the press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court following arguments is at www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0ef4aQFKP8
A video of the interfaith vigil held outside the Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs, which featured Church of the Brethren pastor Jenn Hosler among other faith leaders, is at www.youtube.com/live/9ExIDcdqBIk
Other updates on immigration-related court cases and governmental actions from the Office of Peacebuilding and Policy, collected by Marcia Sowles, and from Church World Service (CWS):
— The federal administration’s efforts to end TPS for many countries have been challenged in several lawsuits. Some TPS terminations are paused, while others are still being decided. A court has temporarily paused the termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria and lawsuits challenging their terminations will be heard before the Supreme Court in April with a final decision expected in June or July. TPS and work permits remain valid for now. For Somalia, TPS was set to end on March 17, but a court has temporarily paused that termination and TPS and work permits remain valid for now. For Yemen, TPS ends on May 4 and immigrants may no longer apply for or renew TPS Yemen. TPS for Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, and South Sudan are still valid because courts have blocked their end for now, and protection from deportation and work permits remain valid. Find translated information on TPS for all countries at https://usahello.org/immigration/temporary-protected-status
— On March 23, a federal court blocked a policy that allowed DHS to arrest and detain refugees who have not filed an application for a Green Card (Form I-485) and have been in the US for one year. Refugees cannot be arrested and detained anywhere in the country under this policy for now. The case is ongoing, and rules could change. Those with a pending Green Card application may be asked to attend a re-interview where officers may review whether they qualified for refugee status when first entering the US. CWS advises to get advice from an immigration lawyer or a trusted legal organization to understand options and risks. Find translated information for refugees at https://usahello.org/immigration/asylum-refugees/usa-resettlement
— Challenges have been made to DHS’ Policy on Re-examination and Detention of Refugees. DHS issued two memoranda that adversely impacted refugees who have been lawfully admitted into the US. On Dec. 2, USCIS issuing a memorandum that it is reviewing and potentially re-interviewing approximately 200,000 to 233,000 refugees admitted between January 2021 and February 2025 and also pausing their applications for Lawful Permanent Resident (green cards). Second, on Feb. 18, DHS issued a policy directing the warrantless arrest and mandatory—and potentially indefinite—detention of lawfully admitted refugees who have lived in the United States for at least one year and have not yet adjusted their resident status or do not have a pending application for permanent resident or “green card” status – even though the government has no reason to believe that they are deportable or have committed any criminal violation. Federal law requires refugees to apply for permanent residency after at least one year of physical presence in the US, but it has never authorized arrest or detention to compel submission of an application. The new policy targets not only those who need time to complete their applications and medical exams, but also up to 100,000 refugees who have pending applications. These policies are part of “Operation Post-Admission Refugee Reinvestigation and Integrity Strengthening” (Operation PARRIS), which DHS announced on Jan. 9.
— Pacito v. Trump challenges refugee ban and termination of funding to resettlement agencies. On March 5, the Ninth Circuit issued a long-awaited decision on the government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court. It followed the “preliminary” ruling made by the same panel in September of last year, now formally reversing much of the injunction issued by a lower court that had compelled the resettlement of certain refugees with strong reliance interests who are stranded in the pipeline. Under this decision, the refugee ban that has held up tens of thousands of conditionally approved refugee cases can continue. The Ninth Circuit decision was not a total reversal of the lower court’s injunction. It found plaintiffs are “likely to succeed” on parts of their challenge and, as a result, affirmed that the administration must continue providing domestic resettlement services to refugees in the US (a part of the injunction that resulted in the resumption of contracts with resettlement agencies and ongoing services to thousands of refugees and Afghan Special Immigrant Visas). That support must continue under this ruling. However, the merits of the claim continue to be litigated in the Western District of Washington, where a trial date has been set for Sept. 8, and a series of discovery deadlines and disclosure dates have been announced in the coming months.
— DHS plans to severely limit asylum seekers’ access to work permits dates to Feb. 23, when DHS published a proposed rule that would halt access to and increase wait times for work permits for people seeking asylum. The rule would stop USCIS from accepting initial employment authorization applications until the agency’s average processing time for affirmative asylum applications is down to 180 days. USCIS alarmingly estimated that such a reduction could take between “14 to 173 years, or longer” to achieve. The rule would also require applicants to wait a year, instead of five months, before they can apply for a work permit. As Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project’s co-executive director Swapna Reddy stressed, “For asylum seekers, being able to work is a key part of being able to seek asylum at all—to be able to put a roof over your head and pay for food while you contribute to your local community.” For more information on the proposed rule go to https://asaptogether.org/en/proposed-work-permit-rule. The public can submit comments on the proposed change until April 24 at regulations.gov by searching “DHS Docket No. 2025-0370”.
— Three lawsuits are challenging the DHS rescission of its three-decade-old policy restricting immigration enforcement actions at or near houses of worship, termed “sensitive locations.” These include Mennonite USA, et al. v. DHS, the case in which the Church of the Brethren joined with 27 other Christian and Jewish denominations to challenge the recission. On Feb. 5, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard argument on plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s decision denying plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege the new policy violates religious freedom protections in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court did not reach the merits of the claim but held that plaintiffs had not established that they had standing to bring the action. Based on the judges’ questions at the argument, the plaintiffs are hopeful for a favorable outcome. Here is a link to the recording of the argument: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/02/25-5209.mp3
— The lawsuit Neguse v. Noem (D.D.C.) addresses Congressional oversight of immigration detention facilities, with 13 members of the House of Representatives challenging DHS policies restricting Congresspersons’ access. Since June 2025, DHS has imposed various requirements that the plaintiffs argue unlawfully limit members of Congress ability to perform oversight of these facilities, including a requirement that members provide seven days of advance notice before being allowed into a facility. The court had previously issued an order requiring DHS to grant access. On March 2, the court ordered DHS to reinstate members of Congress ability to conduct unannounced oversight visits at ICE facilities stating that “the Court’s irreparable harm finding has become even greater over the intervening months, given that ICE’s enforcement and detention practices have become the focus of intense national and congressional interest.”
— Marcia Sowles of the Office of Peacebuilding and Policy contributed to this report.
#MissionAndMinistryBoard #StrategicPlan #RacialJustice #LoveOurNeighbors #Discipleship #NewTestamentGiving
———-
Find more Church of the Brethren news:
- Conference business includes resolutions on weapons transfer, care for immigrants and refugees, polity adjustments for licensed and commissioned ministers
- Essential services of ordinances now available online as For All Who Minister prepares for reprinting
- Brethren Disaster Ministries Rebuilding Program serves Hurricane Helene and Western Maryland storm survivors
- Shine Everywhere free six-week worship series helps churches nurture faith at home
- Feature for Earth Month and Poetry Month: Invitations to look up, to seek abundant life