The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the policy approved by the Donald Trump administration that bars migrants who arrive at the border with Mexico from applying for asylum. The six conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted in favor of denying migrants entry. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

As a result of the ruling, border officials will be able to turn migrants away before they physically cross the border from Mexico into the United States, thereby preventing them from seeking asylum. “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,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the ruling.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that noncitizens who were turned away before they could enter the country had “arrived in” the United States for purposes of federal immigration law and therefore could apply for asylum, a finding the Supreme Court has now overturned.

In a separate ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court also sided with the Trump, allowing it to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians. As a result, around 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians will lose protection from deportation. The Supreme Court ruled that the decision to terminate TPS is largely not subject to judicial review and rejected claims that ending Haiti’s status was based on racial discrimination.

The move could affect up to one million migrants from other countries whose protections have also been revoked as part of Trump’s broader push to expand deportations.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

This article was published jointly by Puente News Collaborative, a bilingual nonprofit newsroom covering Mexico and the United States–Mexico border, and public radio station KTEP.

The gleaming white sculpture of Jesus Christ at the top of windswept Mount Cristo Rey towers over this tiny border town, yet it looms large in the region, seen from miles away in Texas, New Mexico and the Mexican state of Chihuahua.

The federal government, in an eminent domain lawsuit, and in its effort to “wall off” the entire United States from Mexico, is now determined to seize about 14 acres of land at the foot of the mountain facing its southern neighbor. A hearing on the Trump administration’s motion to take “immediate possession” of the land, owned by the Catholic Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico, is scheduled for July 23rd in federal court.

Long a symbol of faith and unity along this stretch of rugged borderland, Mount Cristo Rey is now at the center of a bitter legal battle over religious freedom and border security. The diocese calls the land a “holy site.”

For generations countless thousands of pilgrims have hiked up to the 29-foot limestone figure of Jesus with outstretched arms, anchoring a site considered holy by the diocese, which owns the property.

They’ve trekked to pray, tidy up the area, or simply take in the stunning view of the United States southern border and Mexico’s northern frontier. The faithful aren’t happy.

“Stealing the land”

“I give thanks for all my blessings,” said Ramon Garcia, 73, who along with thousands makes the pilgrimage every Good Friday. He said there is no need for a wall, and admonished the Trump administration for “just stealing the land, land that belongs to us.”

The fight over building barriers in sensitive locations is happening all along the border in areas that include wildlife corridors and national park land in Texas, habitat for endangered cross border species like Jaguars and ancient tribal sites in Arizona and now in New Mexico.

The diocese turned down the Trump administration’s effort to pay $183,071.00 to take property. In its suit filed in May, the diocese said the government is violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“The United States government’s effort to condemn diocesan land to build a border wall is an affront to religious liberty,” said attorney William Powell, seniorcounsel with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C. Powell described the government’s actions as “heavy-handed tactics.”

Illegal crossings decline

In response, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said, “Access to the shrine will not be affected, as all attendees enter from the U.S. side.”

According to the DHS statement, “The only individuals who could POSSIBLY be impacted by the border wall are illegal aliens attempting to illegally enter our country.” The agency maintains that the mountain is a well-worn smuggling route.

In the lawsuit, the federal government said it needs the property “to construct, install, operate, and maintain roads, fencing, vehicle barriers, security lighting, cameras, sensors, and related structures designed to help secure the United States/Mexico border within the state of New Mexico.”

These days, Mount Cristo Rey is heavily guarded by the U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback, helicopters, and by drones overhead. Ground sensors and cameras permeate the desert landscape.

Illegal crossings are down by more than 90 percent since the peak in 2023, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

This stretch of borderland has long been a backdrop for high-profile border wall projects since Trump supporters erected a half-mile steel barrier on private property in Sunland Park in 2019.

“We Build the Wall” organizers raised about $25 million in a crowdfunding campaign. The founder and two other organizers were later convicted or pleaded guilty to defrauding donors and pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars after promising 100 percent of the money would go to build a wall on the border in New Mexico and Texas. Steve Bannon was also charged in connection with the scheme. Trump later pardoned him.

Doing it backwards

The iconic limestone statue, completed in 1940, was the idea of a local parish priest and the work of famed sculptor Urbici Soler. Each year, at least 40,000 faithful and tourists make the more than 2-mile, sinuous hike to the Christ sculpture. During the Good Friday pilgrimage, some people take it further, finishing the trail barefoot or on their knees. Others carry home-made wooden crosses.

“It’s a religious icon. It’s also a cultural icon. And it’s an artistic icon,” said Ruben Escandon with the Mount Cristo Rey Restoration Committee, a volunteer group that relies on donations to maintain the monument.

The hike is an Easter tradition for Lulu Alvarado’s family. Recently, as she approached the top of Mount Cristo Rey, she looked down disapprovingly at construction crews clearing land for the border wall with noisy heavy equipment.

“It really shows the divide between people,” she said.

April Fincher’s family moved to this area in 2023. She brings a different viewpoint. During her first hike up the mountain, walking with her 14-year-old daughter, she offered one quick observation: “Can you still get all the way up? OK, then build the wall.”

The court battle could take months, said legal experts familiar with the lawsuit. Construction started in January, signaled by controlled explosions to open land for the wall’s foundation, startling locals.

Escandon said he understands the need for border enforcement but questions the way the federal government is carrying out the project.

“I think they’re doing it backwards and starting the construction, and now they’re covering their behinds and saying now we need to take the property.”

Angela Kocherga is news director and reports for KTEP public media.

Sign up forour weekly newsletterto get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

With less than five months until midterm elections that will shape the second half of Donald Trump’s term, the old dilemma tearing the Democratic Party apart has resurfaced. The victory on Tuesday of the three candidates backed by New York’s left-wing mayor Zohran Mamdani has raised alarm in the party’s centrist wing, which fears heading into November 3 with candidates seen as too radical and therefore easy targets for Republican attacks.

Mamdani took a considerable risk by explicitly backing Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier—through television ads and joint appearances—against the party’s wishes. All three surprisingly defeated establishment heavyweights on Tuesday. The success of his gamble gives the mayor a substantial injection of political capital he intends to exploit.

“The old politics that got us to this crisis is not the politics that is going to get us out of this crisis,” Mamdani declared on Tuesday to an enthusiastic base. “New Yorkers are hungry for a new kind of politics,” he repeated on Wednesday. The message is clear: old dogmas—whether on the U.S. relationship with Israel or on fighting inequality—are no longer valid.

“Rather than reopening the battle among Democrats, I think Mamdani’s victory, in a way, closes it. Progressives have won. The party is now theirs. It’s clear which way the wind is blowing,” says Lincoln Mitchell, a professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. The political scientist argues the takeaway is that Democrats must change their mindset and stop fielding mediocre candidates just because they have held office for a long time. He insists voters will no longer accept candidates who, for example, hesitate to raise taxes on billionaires.

After these primaries, it is almost a certainty that Lander, Valdez and Avila Chevalier will get seats in the House. Although the midterms are on November 3, all three ran in New York districts with strong Democratic majorities, so that winning the primary effectively amounts to winning the seat.

The significance goes beyond New York. The three politicians share much in common: they belong to the party’s furthest-left wing and hold very critical views of Israel and of unconditional U.S. support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

The steady shift of Democratic sympathizers toward pro-Palestinian positions foreshadows a seismic movement in a party long assumed to be allied with Israel. “The party’s centrist wing has adopted a stance on Israel that, frankly, is disconnected from reality. If you are [California governor] Gavin Newsom, you should be mindful that your position on Israel could cost you the election,” Professor Mitchell adds.

Another sign from these primaries is the growing importance of the socialist movement—a word that was until recently taboo in the United States. Valdez and Avila Chevalier, like Mamdani himself, are members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Lander, who is Jewish, was a member of that organization until he left it in 2023 after Hamas’ attacks on Israel on October 7 of that year. The House that emerges from the midterm elections will have twice as many socialist members, rising from two to four. It is another indicator of the new times in Washington.

Republicans’ response

Meanwhile, Republican rivals are already taking note. Donald Trump was the first. The U.S. president spent Wednesday morning posting on his social network Truth, warning of the alleged danger posed by those he calls communists. For example: “America The Beautiful will NEVER be a communist country!!!”

He also reacted, with a hint of envy, to press coverage of Mamdani’s clear success: “Mayor Mamdani pulled through 3 solid Communists, and has received loud and universal applause from the Fake News Media. I went 16-0 last night, helping to elect wonderful American Patriots, and the Media doesn’t say a word.”

In the coming campaign, in addition to stoking many Americans’ fear of socialist policies, Republicans will be able to use past remarks by the Democrats. For example, Avila Chevalier recently deleted tweets in which she criticized then-Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris. “Fuck Kamala Harris,” she wrote.

She also deleted messages in which she spoke of abolishing the police, prisons and borders, of nationalizing major industries, and in which she questioned Israel’s right to exist. Avila Chevalier has apologized for these comments, saying they do not reflect her current views. But that will not prevent Republicans from using them not only in her New York district but across the United States.

The arrival of these candidates in the Capitol could also spell trouble for current House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who hopes to become speaker if his party regains the majority in November. The party’s left wing has been highly critical of Jeffries’ opposition to the Trump administration, which could complicate his bid.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition