In brief
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court engaged in a critical discussion regarding the Trump administration's request to reinstate a controversial immigration policy known as metering. The policy allows immigration authorities to limit the number of asylum seekers entering the United States to manage border capacity. Advocates caution it leads to humanitarian crises, recalling the plight of individuals turned away during Trump's presidency. The justices are split, questioning whether the policy unfairly denies potential asylum seekers while considering its past application. As U.S. laws mandate asylum applications for those fearing persecution, the core of the legal battle reflects the ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of 'arriving' in the country.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with whether the Trump administration should be able to revive an immigration policy that restricts the flow of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Some conservative justices showed support for the Justice Department’s push to overturn a lower-court ruling against the practice known as metering, where immigration authorities limited the number of asylum applications due to increased border crossings.
Advocates argue that this policy has led to humanitarian crises during Trump's first term, as individuals turned away were left to languish in makeshift camps in Mexico.
Although the policy is no longer in place and was broadly suspended at the onset of Trump’s second term, the Justice Department defends it as a 'critical tool' that should remain an option for future administrations.
As discussions unfolded, justices questioned how metering could discriminate against those who might enter illegally while denying legal entrants at the border.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns: “Why would Congress privilege someone who illegally enters the United States?” Meanwhile, arguments from the Trump administration suggest that individuals turned away could return later, akin to setting capacity limits.
The Associated Press reported thousands of immigrants were on waiting lists during metering's implementation in 2019.
Under U.S. law, those who arrive intending to seek asylum should be permitted to apply, raising critical questions about the interpretation of the phrase “arrive in.”
The Justice Department asserts it applies only to individuals already within U.S. territory, excluding those paused at the border. Conversely, immigration advocates argue the law traditionally allows applications from those at entry points.
Chief Justice John Roberts probed into the specifics of where individuals must be to assert their asylum claims, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted the difficulty of addressing these questions without an active policy in place. “We have a lot of hypotheticals regarding how this policy may have worked in the past, but we don’t have a policy in effect right now that we can rule on,” she stated.
The metering practice originated under President Obama during a surge in Haitian migrants at the San Diego crossover and was expanded under Trump. The policy ended with the widening of restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and President Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.
A prior ruling by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant confirmed that metering violated migrants' rights, reinforcing a legal obligation to screen asylum-seekers upon their arrival.
Migrants in the U.S. are entitled to seek asylum regardless of their entry method, provided they demonstrate a legitimate fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or other specified criteria. If successful, they are afforded protections against deportation, the ability to work legally, and avenues towards legal residency and citizenship.
