Supreme Court Decision May Revive Controversial Immigration Policy
The U.S. Supreme Court has opened the possibility for the Trump administration to reinstate an immigration policy that previously limited asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border. On Thursday, the court ruled 6-3 to overturn a lower court’s decision that had blocked this practice.
The policy, often referred to as “metering,” was initially implemented during the Obama administration and expanded significantly under President Donald Trump. It restricted the number of asylum applications processed daily, resulting in many migrants living in dangerous makeshift shelters while waiting for their turn to apply. The Trump administration defended the policy as necessary to manage a surge in asylum seekers at the border.
Currently, the policy is not active, although other asylum restrictions remain. The administration’s stance is that metering is an essential tool used by both Democratic and Republican presidents, and it should remain available. Federal lawyers assert that individuals turned away can return later, despite the fact that lines were often thousands long when the policy was utilized.
This case is among several immigration-related lawsuits the court is examining this term, including efforts to end birthright citizenship and revoke temporary legal protections for migrants escaping conflict and instability.
Under U.S. federal law, migrants arriving at the border have the right to apply for asylum and undergo screening for fear of persecution in their home countries. However, the Justice Department contends that migrants stopped at the border have not technically “arrived” in the U.S., and thus, immigration officers are not obligated to allow them to apply for asylum.
The court’s conservative majority agreed with this interpretation. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated, “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door.” In contrast, lawyers advocating for asylum seekers argue that the law has historically required that anyone reaching a U.S. port of entry be screened, and preventing arrivals undermines American values.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority’s decision, saying it “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
Following Sotomayor’s dissent, Justice Alito responded, noting the policy’s use under multiple presidencies and expressed surprise at her vocal opposition. “I won’t add anything more to that,” he concluded.
Initially applied at the San Diego-Tijuana crossing during a surge of Haitian migrants, metering was later extended to all border crossings during Trump’s first term. The practice was halted in 2020 due to pandemic-related restrictions, and President Joe Biden officially ended it in 2021.
In the same year, a federal judge in California ruled that metering violated asylum seekers’ rights and the legal requirement for screening. A divided appeals court upheld this ruling, although nearly half of the judges on the full appeals court in San Francisco voted for a rehearing, potentially drawing the Supreme Court’s attention.
U.S. law permits individuals seeking refuge to apply for asylum once they are on American soil, regardless of their method of entry. To qualify, they must demonstrate a legitimate fear of persecution based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion. Asylum recipients cannot be deported and may work legally, bring immediate family members, apply for residency, and pursue citizenship.
