US Supreme Court Leans Toward Trump Administration in Asylum 'Metering' Policy Case
A coalition of advocacy organizations held a vigil outside the US Supreme Court on Tuesday as justices heard arguments in a pivotal case concerning the authority to deny asylum seekers entry to the United States. The White House is defending its ability to turn away individuals seeking refuge when officials determine that border crossings are too overwhelmed to handle additional claims.
Justices Show Sympathy Toward Administration's Position
During oral arguments, Supreme Court justices indicated significant sympathy toward Donald Trump's administration in its defense of a policy known as "metering." This policy, which was implemented during Trump's first term and rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021, allows US immigration officials to stop asylum seekers at the border and indefinitely decline to process their claims when crossings are deemed overburdened.
The legal dispute centers on whether this practice violates federal law. The Trump administration has appealed a lower court's ruling that found the policy illegal. This case is separate from the broader asylum ban announced by Trump after returning to the presidency last year, which also faces ongoing legal challenges.
The Core Legal Question: What Constitutes 'Arrival' in the United States?
Under US law, a migrant who "arrives in the United States" may apply for asylum and must be inspected by a federal immigration official. The narrow legal issue in this case is whether asylum seekers who are stopped on the Mexican side of the border have technically "arrived" in the United States.
Vivek Suri, the Justice Department lawyer arguing for the Trump administration, told the justices, "You can't arrive in the United States while you're still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case."
Conservative and Liberal Justices Probe Both Sides
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Kelsi Corkran, the lawyer representing immigrant advocacy group Al Otro Lado, on what exactly constitutes arrival in the United States. "How close do you have to be to the border?" Barrett asked. "Could you say that someone arrives in the United States if they're at a portion of the border that does not have a port of entry? What is the magic thing, or the dispositive thing, that we're looking for where we say, 'Ah, now that person, we can say, arrives in the United States?'"
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed sharp questions to Suri about whether the metering policy violates the letter or spirit of federal law protecting refugees. "These are people who come to the line, there's an agent standing at the line that's open to everybody else, except refugees, correct?" Sotomayor asked. "They're letting in workers with permits to come in to work. They're letting everybody else in. But they're not permitting the people who come to the line – to the door and knock on it [who] want to claim refugee status."
Sotomayor added, "Someone on a plane arriving to land in LaGuardia may not have put their foot on US land. But they've arrived in the United States. They're arriving. They're knocking on the door," referring to the New York City airport.
Historical Context and Policy Background
US immigration officials began turning away asylum seekers at the border in 2016 under former President Barack Obama amid a migrant surge. The metering policy was formalized in 2018 during Trump's first term, with border officials authorized to decline processing asylum claims when the government decides it is unable to handle additional applications.
In court papers, the Trump administration told the Supreme Court it would likely resume using metering "as soon as changed border conditions warranted that step," without providing specific details.
Legal Challenge and Previous Rulings
Al Otro Lado, which provides legal and humanitarian support to migrants, launched this long-running legal challenge in 2017. The San Francisco-based Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2024 that federal law requires border agents to inspect all asylum seekers who "arrive" at designated border crossings, even if they have not yet crossed into the United States, and that the metering policy violated that obligation.
A ruling in this case is expected by the end of June. The Supreme Court has previously backed Trump in several immigration-related rulings issued on an emergency basis since his return to the presidency, including allowing him to deport migrants to countries other than their own and to revoke temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants in the United States.
