The United States Supreme Court has stepped into a significant legal battle concerning immigration, agreeing to review the legality of a controversial Trump-era policy that limited the processing of asylum claims at the US-Mexico border.
The Legal Challenge to 'Metering'
On Monday, the court accepted the Trump administration's appeal, which seeks to defend the government's authority to implement a 'metering' policy. This policy allowed US immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers at official ports of entry, effectively declining to process their claims when those entry points were deemed at capacity.
The legal challenge was initiated in 2017 by the advocacy group Al Otro Lado. They argued that the policy violated federal law, which states that any non-citizen who 'arrives in the United States' is permitted to apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration official. The central legal question the Supreme Court must now resolve is whether asylum seekers stopped on the Mexican side of the border have, in fact, 'arrived' in the US.
A Policy's Journey Through the Courts
The metering policy was first formally established in 2018 during Donald Trump's first term, though US officials began turning away asylum seekers under similar reasoning as early as 2016 under the Obama administration. While the policy was rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021, the Trump administration has indicated it would consider reinstating it if border conditions changed.
In a 2024 ruling, the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals decided against the policy by a 2-1 majority. The court determined that federal law obliges border agents to inspect all asylum seekers who arrive at designated border crossings, even if they have not physically crossed into the United States, and that metering violated this obligation.
The Trump administration's justice department contested this, arguing in court filings that the phrase 'arrive in' implies entering a location, not merely approaching it. They used vivid analogies, stating, 'Allied forces did not arrive in Normandy while they were still crossing the English Channel,' and 'a running back does not arrive in the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line.'
Broader Implications and Expected Ruling
This case is separate from the sweeping asylum ban Trump issued after returning to the presidency on 20 January, which is itself facing legal challenges. The Supreme Court's decision on the metering policy is anticipated by the end of June.
This hearing is part of a broader pattern where the Trump administration has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to allow policies blocked by lower courts. The court has frequently sided with the administration in such interim rulings, including on matters related to deporting migrants to countries other than their own and revoking temporary humanitarian legal status.
The outcome of this case will have profound implications for the interpretation of US asylum law and the authority of the executive branch to control the flow of migrants at the border.
