The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a long-running legal dispute over an immigration policy that restricted the number of asylum seekers permitted to request entry at official ports along the southern U.S. border.
The case centers on the practice known as “metering,” a policy implemented during the administration of former President Donald Trump. Under the system, migrants seeking asylum were required to remain in Mexico until U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials allowed them to approach ports of entry to begin the asylum process.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 procedures designed to evaluate their claims. Trump’s legal team subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing that it improperly limits the executive branch’s authority to manage border operations.U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the Constitution grants primary responsibility for regulating the nation’s borders to Congress and the executive branch rather than the judiciary. He contended that the appellate court’s ruling interferes with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws and administer asylum procedures.Immigrant rights organization Al Otro Lado, joined by 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 the policy unlawfully prevented vulnerable migrants—including families and children fleeing persecution—from seeking protection in the United States. Meanwhile, the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal.
