In a pivotal decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration the potential to reinstate a controversial immigration policy, previously used to manage asylum seekers at the southern border. This decision marks a significant legal victory for the administration, despite opposition from immigrant advocates who argue the policy exacerbates humanitarian issues.
The 6-3 ruling from the justices overturned a lower court’s decision that had halted the policy, which was initially implemented under President Obama and expanded by President Trump. This policy, known as “metering,” restricted the number of asylum applications processed daily, leading to thousands of migrants waiting in inadequate conditions at the border.
Although the policy is not currently active, the Department of Homeland Security has not commented on its potential reinstatement. Metering, according to federal attorneys, serves as an essential tool used by both Democratic and Republican administrations to control the influx of asylum seekers. The administration insists that migrants turned away could seek entry again, though the practice had previously resulted in long queues at border entry points.
This case is one of several immigration-related disputes facing the Supreme Court, including efforts to terminate birthright citizenship. Concurrently, the court has permitted the termination of deportation protections for migrants escaping conflict from nations such as Haiti and Syria.
Under existing U.S. immigration law, individuals arriving in the United States are entitled to apply for asylum if they face persecution risks in their home countries. However, the Justice Department maintains that those stopped at the border have not technically “arrived,” and thus are not automatically eligible to apply for asylum.
The court’s conservative bloc supported this interpretation. Justice Samuel Alito articulated, “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door.” In contrast, asylum attorneys argue that the policy undermines fundamental American values by restricting legitimate asylum claims at ports of entry.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, asserting that the ruling “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.” Her comments prompted an unusual rejoinder from Alito, who defended the policy’s bipartisan history.
Originally employed during Obama’s tenure due to increased Haitian migration at the San Diego-Tijuana crossing, metering was expanded across all U.S.-Mexico border crossings under Trump. The policy was discontinued in 2020 amid the pandemic, with President Biden officially nullifying it in 2021.
A California-based federal judge previously ruled that metering infringed on the rights of asylum seekers, a decision upheld by a divided appeals court. However, nearly half the judges from the full appellate court wanted to revisit the ruling, potentially influencing the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the case.
Democracy Forward, the organization that initiated the lawsuit, expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision. “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and call on all Americans to demand that our government protect the families the Court today decided to keep in harm’s way,” stated Skye Perryman, the organization’s President and CEO.
Under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply once they reach American soil, irregardless of their entry method. To be eligible, they must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution based on specific criteria such as race, religion, or political opinion. Successful asylum applicants gain protection from deportation, work authorization, family reunification rights, and a pathway to citizenship.
