Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center: Supreme Court grants review of Proclamation 10888's asylum and removal limits

What happened

On November 13, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the federal government's petition for a writ of certiorari in Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, No. 26-239. The order list states: "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition." The Court did not take up the petition's third question. No Justice noted a dissent from the grant.

The case concerns Proclamation 10888, "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," published at 90 Fed. Reg. 8333 (Jan. 29, 2025), and the Department of Homeland Security guidance that implements it.

What the order says

The petition, filed by the Solicitor General on August 24, 2026, presented three questions:

1. "Whether Presidential Proclamation No. 10,888 ... and its implementing guidance—which suspended the entry of certain aliens and precluded their access to statutory provisions that would enable their continued presence in the country, including asylum—are lawful."
2. "Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1) bars the classwide relief entered by the district court."
3. "Whether the class definition comports with Article III and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

The Court granted the first two. The third question, about Article III and the class definition, is not before the Court.

The decision under review

The district court certified a class, held the proclamation and guidance unlawful in substantial part, and entered a classwide injunction and declaration on July 2, 2025. A D.C. Circuit motions panel partly stayed that judgment, including the parts concerning asylum.

On April 24, 2026, a merits panel of the D.C. Circuit (Judges Pillard, Walker and Childs) affirmed. Judge Childs wrote for the court. The opinion begins by quoting precedent that "over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete" than over the admission of noncitizens. The court held that the proclamation's asylum restrictions violate the Immigration and Nationality Act. It also held that "Section 1182(f) addresses entry and not removal," so people who cross in violation of the entry suspension may be removed only through the INA's removal procedures. It held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1) does not bar the injunction.

Judge Walker concurred in part and dissented in part. He wrote that because the President "has already exercised his lawful discretion to deny all asylum applications," "he may foreclose the application process as futile." He also wrote that the President "has an inherent, generalized authority to expel aliens," which Congress has limited by statute. He concluded that the class includes "potentially millions of plaintiffs without standing" and that the injunction "was barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1)." The full court denied rehearing en banc. On July 27, 2026, it stayed its mandate pending this Court's review, so the partial stay remains in place.

The arguments in the petition and the opposition

The government argues that the proclamation "is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under the INA and his inherent constitutional authority under Article II." It argues that Section 1182(f) "supplements the President's inherent Article II authority" and that asylum "is a purely discretionary benefit," so the government need not accept "futile" applications.

The respondents are three nonprofit organizations and 13 individuals. Their brief in opposition argues that the decision below "simply enforces a straightforward interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act." They argue that Section 1182(f) "does not speak to the removal of noncitizens who are already here," and that Congress has "'exclusive[]' authority" over the entry of noncitizens and their right to remain. On Article II, they argue that the government "failed to develop this argument below" and "expressly 'disclaim[ed] any inherent power to summarily remove noncitizens,'" and that the argument is also wrong on the merits.

Where it sits in the record

The questions are framed mainly under the INA. The constitutional thread runs through the separation of powers. The respondents' amended complaint, as the district court described it, alleged that the proclamation "exceeds the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution and his authority, if any, under Article IV, Section 4." Section 4 of the proclamation itself invokes Article II and Article IV, Section 4.

Both sides rely on Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which addressed Section 1182(f). On November 9, 2026, the Court stayed an injunction in a separate border case, Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church, which is also in this record.

The docket does not yet show a date for oral argument.