Trump scores SCOTUS WIN but ruling may fuel border surge

The Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to restrict asylum applications, hailed by immigration hawks, could actually end up increasing illegal crossings, according to the three dissenting justices and immigration nonprofit involved in the case.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court held in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that migrants must physically set foot in the United States in order to be eligible for asylum, reversing lower court rulings that had required the government to process certain asylum seekers turned away at ports of entry. While the decision is broadly viewed as making asylum claims more difficult to secure, an objective of the Trump administration, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Al Otro Lado both argue that it may have unintended consequences.

"This Court has previously recognized that immigration statutes and procedures should not be construed to ‘create a perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location. ​​Yet, the majority’s construction does exactly that," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. "It tells asylum seekers that they may apply for asylum if they can make it across the border illegally but that they cannot apply if they patiently wait at the edge of a port of entry."