WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump’s claims that an “invasion” at the southern border can be used to deny asylum claims by refugees.

The Trump administration had asked the justices to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that held the president could not broadly deny asylum claims under federal law. The case is the latest high-profile fight over one of Trump’s signature domestic policies.

The administration argues in its petition for the justices to take the case that the president has broad authority over asylum claims, which includes shutting down the system entirely because he has decided he will not grant any.

“The proclamation thus lawfully suspends access to asylum, which is a purely discretionary benefit. The court of appeals’ insistence that aliens are entitled to file futile asylum applications elevates empty procedures over substance,” the petition says.

Trump issued the order on his first day in office, declaring an “invasion” on the southern border and using that as a reason to deny asylum claims by refugees who present themselves there. The order is still in place, preventing asylum claims at the U.S.-Mexico border while the lawsuit plays out.

In court filings asking the justices to take the case, the administration pointed to “dramatic” reductions in illegal border crossings, which freed up resources to combat human trafficking and other threats.

In Friday’s order, the justices agreed to hear arguments over the legality of Trump’s executive order as well as whether the lower-court judge could grant an order in favor of all asylum seekers rather than just the ones who brought the suit.

Immigration rights groups initially challenged the order and won a successful ruling from a federal judge in Washington. The administration later appealed to the D.C. Circuit, where it lost at a three-judge panel before it brought the case before the justices.

The D.C. Circuit held that although federal law provides a president discretion in denying asylum claims, he cannot do so categorically.

The ACLU and immigrant rights groups who brought the case defended the ruling in their own filing. The filing argues that Congress mandated the creation of the asylum system and the president “may not invent by fiat a new removal system that eviscerates the protections Congress mandated by statute.”

Last term the justices ruled in favor of a separate policy dating to the first Trump administration that allowed officials to prevent asylum claims by stopping refugees from actually reaching the U.S. border.

A ruling in favor of the refugees could allow the administration to restart that policy and still deny asylum claims.

The case granted Friday is the latest high-profile immigration policy clash on the justices’ docket this term. Earlier this year the justices agreed to hear a challenge to the administration’s policy that most immigrants facing deportation should be detained without bond.

The justices will likely hear oral arguments and decide the case granted Friday before the end of the court’s term next June.

The case is Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.

_____

©2026 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.