The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a long-standing dispute over an immigration policy that limited the number of asylum seekers allowed to request entry at official ports along the southern U.S. border.
The case stems from the practice known as “metering,” which was implemented during the Trump administration. Under the policy, migrants seeking asylum were required to wait in Mexico until U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers allowed them to approach ports of entry. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the practice violated federal asylum law by preventing migrants from accessing the legal process. President Donald Trump’s legal team petitioned the Supreme Court to review that decision, arguing that the ruling improperly restricts the authority of the executive branch to manage the nation’s borders. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer contended that the Constitution assigns border regulation primarily to Congress and the executive branch, not the courts. He argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision interferes with the government’s ability to enforce immigration policy and manage asylum procedures.
Immigrant rights organization Al Otro Lado, along with 13 asylum seekers who filed the original lawsuit in 2017, supports the lower court’s ruling and plans to defend it before the justices. Attorneys for the group argue that the policy unlawfully blocked vulnerable migrants—including families and children fleeing persecution—from seeking protection in the United States. Lawyers representing the asylum seekers also maintain that the appellate ruling applies only to a specific group of migrants involved in the case, questioning whether the Supreme Court’s review will have broader implications. The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the Court’s decision to take up the appeal.
