High Court Weighs Trump Border Asylum Restriction Revival

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether the Trump administration can restore a border policy that limited asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border. The controversial "metering" practice, which created long waiting lists and makeshift camps, was previously struck down by lower courts but the administration calls it a vital immigration tool.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices deliberated Tuesday over whether to allow the Trump administration to restore a border immigration practice that restricted asylum seekers at crossings along the U.S.-Mexico boundary.

Several conservative members of the court appeared sympathetic to the Justice Department’s efforts to reverse a lower court decision blocking the strategy called metering. Border officials had capped how many individuals could request asylum protection, claiming the limits were essential to manage rising border crossings.

Immigration advocates contend the practice sparked a humanitarian emergency during Trump’s initial presidency, as rejected migrants established temporary settlements in Mexico while awaiting opportunities to pursue asylum claims.

While the practice is currently inactive and Trump has implemented broader asylum restrictions in his second term, the administration maintains that metering serves as a “critical tool” utilized by previous administrations from both political parties and should remain available for future use if needed.

Several justices appeared willing to consider this position, though others questioned whether the policy would permit individuals who crossed illegally to seek asylum while blocking new arrivals attempting legal entry at official border points.

“Why would Congress privilege someone who illegally enters the United States?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh inquired during proceedings.

A Trump administration lawyer argued that individuals denied entry could return on subsequent days. “It’s saying our port is at capacity today, try again some other day,” explained Vivek Suri, assistant to the solicitor general.

Associated Press reporting documented thousands of immigrants placed on waiting lists during the policy’s implementation in 2019.

Federal immigration law requires that migrants arriving in the U.S. who fear persecution in their native countries must have access to asylum applications. The central legal question in this metering dispute involves interpreting the phrase “arrive in.”

Justice Department lawyers contend this language applies only to individuals already present within United States territory, excluding those stopped on the Mexican side of the border. However, immigration lawyers argue the statute has historically meant anyone reaching a port of entry must be permitted to apply, and this interpretation should continue.

“This life saving protection and more importantly, access to it is enshrined in our laws and has been for decades now,” stated Rebecca Cassler, an attorney representing the American Immigration Council, following the court session.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned a migrant advocate attorney extensively about the precise location requirements for asylum claims. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted the difficulty of addressing these issues without an active policy to evaluate.

“It just seems to me that we have a lot of hypotheticals regarding how this policy may have worked in the past, how it’s possibly going to work in the future, but we don’t have a policy in effect right now that we can actually rule on,” she observed.

The metering approach originated during Barack Obama’s presidency when significant numbers of Haitians arrived at the primary San Diego crossing from Tijuana, Mexico. Trump’s first administration expanded the practice to encompass all Mexican border crossings.

The policy concluded in 2020 as coronavirus pandemic measures led to increased asylum restrictions. President Joe Biden officially eliminated metering in 2021.

That same year, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant, appointed by Obama, determined that metering violated migrants’ constitutional protections and federal requirements mandating screening for anyone seeking asylum at the border.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her decision by a divided vote, though nearly half the judges on the San Francisco-based court supported rehearing the case, potentially signaling Supreme Court interest.

Individuals seeking U.S. refuge can pursue asylum once on American territory, regardless of their entry method. Qualification requires demonstrating persecution fears in their home country based on specific factors including race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political beliefs.

Asylum recipients cannot face deportation and gain work authorization, family reunification rights, legal residency applications, and eventual citizenship eligibility.

This metering case represents one of multiple immigration matters before the court this term, including Trump’s efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and administration attempts to remove legal protections for migrants fleeing conflict and instability.