The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case determining whether providing ordinary services like cooking meals to a terrorist organization constitutes "material support" that disqualifies an immigrant from asylum. The decision will test how broadly immigration authorities can apply federal bars and how far the Trump administration can go in deporting individuals accused of supporting militant groups.
The case centers on Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian citizen who was deported to Nigeria in April 2025 while his appeal was pending. Ozurumba claims he was forced to cook for the Unknown Gunmen, a militant group linked to political violence in Nigeria. An immigration judge determined the group qualified as a "Tier III" terrorist organization under federal law, despite the State Department not formally designating it as such. Ozurumba stated that armed guards prevented him from leaving and that he cooked for the group's leaders for roughly six months, including three months without pay, before escaping during a grocery trip.
The legal dispute hinges on a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bars immigrants who provide "material support" to terrorist organizations from receiving asylum. The statute lists examples of prohibited assistance, such as transportation, communications, housing, money, weapons, and training, but does not explicitly define the term. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Ozurumba's deportation order in a 2-1 ruling, concluding that his cooking did not provide resources that could be directly used or readily redirected toward terrorist operations. Judge James Wynn Jr., an Obama appointee, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Nicole Berner, a Biden appointee. The court left unresolved whether the law contains an exception for assistance provided under duress.
The Trump administration argues that the lower court interpreted the law too narrowly. Officials contend that ordinary services help sustain terrorist organizations by freeing members to carry out attacks. Bryce Poole, a senior legal fellow with Advancing American Freedom, told Fox News Digital that because Ozurumba cooked meals, armed guards or bomb makers could remain on duty instead of preparing food. Poole described the resources as fungible, arguing that the court interpreted a broad congressional rule narrowly.
Judge Julius Richardson dissented, arguing that cooking thousands of meals for terrorist leaders constituted material support because it allowed them to focus on their organizational goals. Richardson noted that Ozurumba acted as a private chef providing three meals a day for over a dozen leaders for months. Hans von Spakovsky, another legal expert with Advancing American Freedom, criticized the majority's interpretation, stating that providing over 8,000 meals defies common sense. Von Spakovsky argued that other federal appeals courts have held that providing food and shelter constitutes material support even if unconnected to a specific terrorist event.
The case arrives two years after the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, a doctrine that required judges to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. The 2024 ruling granted judges greater authority to decide legal meaning. A favorable ruling would not automatically grant Ozurumba asylum or ensure his return to the United States. Immigration authorities would still need to reconsider his case, having previously declined to order his return and leaving it to their discretion whether his presence in the U.S. would be necessary for further proceedings.