The Supreme Court agreed to review an effort by the Trump administration to limit asylum processing claims from immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
At issue is whether federal law requiring that a noncitizen who “arrives in the United States” be allowed to apply for asylum also covers individuals who are stopped by U.S. officials while still on the Mexican side of the border. The Biden administration rescinded the policy at the center of the case, but the Trump administration—now acting in defense of the rule—has urged the Court to weigh in, arguing that clarity is needed given the ongoing strain at the southern border.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings that the statute should be interpreted according to its plain meaning.
“In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Sauer argued. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”
From 2016 to 2021, both the Obama and Trump administrations used “metering,” a policy that allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to manage high volumes of migrant arrivals by temporarily directing individuals to wait in Mexico until officials could process them. The approach was designed to reduce overcrowding and operational strain at ports of entry.
Sauer said the lower-court ruling “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border.”
Opponents of the policy, however, have argued that metering unlawfully prevented migrants from accessing the asylum process. The plaintiffs’ legal team said in a statement that “the government’s turnback policy was an illegal scheme to circumvent these requirements by physically blocking asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry and preventing them from crossing the border to seek protection.”
“Vulnerable families, children, and adults fleeing persecution were stranded in perilous conditions where they faced violent assault, kidnapping, and death,” the statement continued. “We look forward to presenting our case to the Court.”
In 2023, a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the metering practice violated federal law and required DHS to inspect all asylum seekers who arrive at a port of entry. The full 9th Circuit declined to reconsider the decision, prompting the appeal now headed to the Supreme Court.
Oral arguments are expected in late winter or early spring as part of the Court’s current term.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Wanting a better situation is not wrong but the US taxpayer should not be paying for you to be here. We need to fix our immigration system to let those who apply to come legally don’t have to wait years to get approved and those who don’t get deported. We were already vetting and allowing one million a year into the country. Go watch the immigration gumball videos on youtube. There are too many impoverished people in the world. The ones who used to come here were usually their brightest who could succeed. Biden let anyone, killed, intelligent or not into the country and we will pay the price for a long time. Think how the prior entrants could help their own countries if we could reign in their corruption. The corruption is the worldwide problem and our CIA doesn’t help. It helps it keep going.