News
Sotomayor Compares Asylum Ruling to U.S. Turning Away Jewish Refugees in WWII
Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that asylum seekers have not entered the U.S. at the border to one of the most shameful parts of U.S. history.
The Supreme Court issued four rulings on Thursday. One of them was in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, which challenged a 2016 U.S. Customs and Border Patrol policy where border patrol officers stood at the U.S. border and kept asylum seekers from entering the country. The immigration activist group Al Otro Lado challenged the rule, arguing it “withheld inspection and asylum processing from aliens who arrive at the border.”
The Court decided 6-3 along ideological lines that the policy was legal, with Justice Samuel Alito invoking “ordinary speech” to explain his reasoning.
READ MORE: ‘Alarm Bells’ as Trump Turns to Civil War White Supremacists in SCOTUS Case
“This case presents a straightforward question: whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico ‘arrives in the United States’ when he or she is still in Mexico. In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered ‘yes.’ That is wrong. In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person “arrives in” a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place. The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading. So does the presumption against extraterritoriality. We therefore reverse,” Alito wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote his own concurrence, which defended President Donald Trump’s power in determining immigration policy, writing “Congress, for its part, has no enumerated power to require the President to bring certain aliens into the country. The Constitution grants Congress the power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.’ … But, the class members in this case are not naturalized or even on the path to naturalization.”
“So, any statute that forced the President to allow aliens to cross the border against his will would appear to exceed Congress’s enumerated powers, and a court could not enforce it against the President,” Thomas added.
Sotomayor wrote a blistering dissent which, according to journalist Steve Vladeck, was read from the bench. In her dissent, Sotomayor tells the story of the M.S. St. Louis, a ship that set sail from Europe in 1939 with over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. The M.S. St. Louis sailed to Cuba and the United States. Both Cuba and the United States turned it away. In the United States’ case, it was due to strict immigration quotas and, as she writes, “the relevant quota was already filled for that year.”
The M.S. St. Louis sailed to Canada where it was again turned away, and went back to Europe.
“Tragically, over 500 of the refugees that had attempted to flee were trapped in Western Europe under German control, and over 250 of them died during the Holocaust. Most of them were ‘murdered in the killing centers of Auschwitz and Sobibór’ and ‘the rest died in internment camps, in hiding, or attempting to evade the Nazis,'” she wrote.
“Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past. Yet if the refugees on the M. S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U. S. soil,” Sotomayor added.
“The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not. More dissenting people will be forced to walk along the U. S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them. More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. Because this is neither what Congress said nor what its words permit, I respectfully dissent.”
Alito responded to Sotomayor’s dissent from the bench, Vladeck said—adding “That’s … unusual.” However, he declined to say what the substance of Alito’s response was. Audio for the ruling will be released this October, as is standard SCOTUS protocol.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
![]() |




























