Supreme Court Appears Open to Trump Asylum Policy

The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold the Trump administration's asylum "metering" policy, with a majority of justices seeming to agree the policy does not violate federal law.

Objective Facts

The Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with whether the Trump administration should be able to revive an immigration policy that has been used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. Some conservative justices seemed receptive to the Justice Department's push to overturn a lower-court ruling against the practice known as metering, under which immigration authorities limited the number of people who could apply for asylum, saying it was necessary to handle an increase at the border. Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group, and 13 asylum seekers challenged the policy in federal court in southern California, and a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed that noncitizens who were turned away from ports of entry before they could cross the border had "arrived in" the United States for asylum purposes. The court will likely decide the case in late June or early July.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets reported the Supreme Court seemed open to arguments from the Trump administration that it has a right to turn asylum seekers away at border ports of entry, even if they have potentially valid claims and follow the legal process for pursuing them, with the central question being whether someone who arrives at a port of entry has the right to claim asylum even if officials physically block them from entering. Immigration rights groups and asylum seekers challenged the policy by arguing that "Congress carefully crafted our asylum system to ensure that the United States lives up to its ideals and its treaty obligations towards non-citizens fleeing persecution," and that "The turn back policy flouted both." When the metering policy was in place, it frustrated the ability of tens of thousands of migrants to move forward in seeking asylum, and turning those people back "quickly created a humanitarian crisis in Mexico," with many found living in makeshift camps. Left outlets noted the administration disputed a 2020 inspector general's report that found some border ports rejected asylum seekers even when they had the capacity to process them. Progressive voices emphasized that "the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum," with stakes that are "literally life and death." Left-leaning outlets quoted asylum advocates saying the government was offering a "nonsensical" reading of the law that failed the United States' ideals and treaty obligations, with the law's wording reflecting its amendment history and "the natural way that we talk."

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-leaning outlets focused on Justice Brett Kavanaugh's question: "Why would Congress privilege someone who illegally enters the United States?" with the Trump administration responding that people turned away one day could potentially come back later, saying "It's saying our port is at capacity today, try again some other day." Conservative outlets reported the Supreme Court's conservative majority showed openness to the Trump administration's position that an immigrant can apply for asylum only if they set foot in the United States. Conservative coverage noted that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, supports metering, writing in a legal brief that without it would "entrench that chaos." The administration argued that metering remains a "critical tool" used under administrations from both parties, and should be available if necessary in the future. Conservative sources acknowledged that the policy was initially adopted by the Obama administration, but emphasized that without metering, people "don't actually have to talk to you, whatever you tell us about harm or fear that you might experience doesn't count if you haven't actually made it to the actual border." Right-aligned outlets covered the Trump administration's argument that the phrase "arrives in the United States" would be "stopped outside the United States" under the challengers' reading and "defies the statutory text," noting the position is supported by a 1993 Supreme Court decision on Haitian refugees.

Deep Dive

The March 24, 2026 Supreme Court oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado represent a critical juncture for asylum law in the United States. The metering policy originated in 2016 under the Obama administration during a surge of Haitian asylum seekers, was formalized and expanded under Trump's first term, ended in 2020 during the pandemic, and was formally rescinded by Biden in 2021. The policy's seemingly modest operational purpose—limiting daily processing capacity—has become a flashpoint for competing visions of immigration law and executive authority. The central legal dispute hinges on a deceptively simple phrase: what does it mean to "arrive in" the United States? Under U.S. law, noncitizens can apply for asylum when they are "physically present in the United States" or when they "arrive[] in the United States," after which they are screened by border officials and channeled into the asylum system. The Trump administration argues "arrive in" requires actual physical presence within U.S. borders, while asylum advocates contend someone at a port of entry actively attempting to present themselves has "arrived." The metering policy, when in place, frustrated the ability of tens of thousands of migrants to move forward in seeking asylum. What left-leaning outlets emphasize—the policy's humanitarian costs documented in makeshift camps—the administration characterizes as manageable temporary delays during capacity constraints. Notably, even the Biden Justice Department, defending the policy in the Ninth Circuit, argued it was "reasonably based on demonstrated capacity constraints," though Biden ultimately abandoned the policy. This suggests the legal and practical questions are genuinely complex, not merely matters of ideology. Several justices struggled audibly with where to draw the line—questions about people in line, at the port's threshold, or wading the Rio Grande reflected genuine uncertainty about any bright-line rule. What remains unresolved is whether the Trump administration will actually resurrect metering if permitted, under what conditions, and whether alternative mechanisms exist for managing border surges that might prove less contentious. The case also reflects broader institutional questions about the Supreme Court's proper role. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the Court should rule on a policy no longer in effect, noting "we have a lot of hypotheticals regarding how this policy may have worked in the past, how it's possibly going to work in the future, but we don't have a policy in effect right now." One legal analyst raised concern that the Supreme Court shouldn't decide hypothetical questions, and the policy's current inactivity "ought to be fatal to the Supreme Court's power to decide this case." A decision favoring the Trump administration would not immediately implement metering but would authorize its future use—a ruling on potential executive power rather than immediate harm. The outcome will likely turn less on which side marshals the better policy argument and more on how five justices answer the textual and historical question of what Congress meant by "arrive in" in 1996.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Supreme Court Appears Open to Trump Asylum Policy

The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold the Trump administration's asylum "metering" policy, with a majority of justices seeming to agree the policy does not violate federal law.

Mar 24, 2026· Updated Mar 25, 2026
What's Going On

The Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with whether the Trump administration should be able to revive an immigration policy that has been used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. Some conservative justices seemed receptive to the Justice Department's push to overturn a lower-court ruling against the practice known as metering, under which immigration authorities limited the number of people who could apply for asylum, saying it was necessary to handle an increase at the border. Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group, and 13 asylum seekers challenged the policy in federal court in southern California, and a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed that noncitizens who were turned away from ports of entry before they could cross the border had "arrived in" the United States for asylum purposes. The court will likely decide the case in late June or early July.

Left says: Immigration advocates argue Trump wants authority to restart the "turnback" policy, which denied asylum seekers the chance to state their case — even if they followed the law. Congress carefully crafted the asylum system to ensure the United States lives up to its ideals and treaty obligations toward those fleeing persecution, and the turn back policy flouted both.
Right says: The Trump administration argues "It's saying our port is at capacity today, try again some other day." The administration contends it is "entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections."
✓ Common Ground
Both sides acknowledge that metering was first used during President Barack Obama's administration when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main crossing to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico, and was expanded to all border crossings from Mexico during Trump's first term.
Several voices across the spectrum recognize that the policy was rescinded under President Joe Biden and that Trump's ability to reinstate it has been hindered by lower court rulings that said it was unlawful.
Some justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum raised questions about whether the policy would create inconsistencies regarding people who entered the country illegally versus new arrivals seeking legal entry at the border.
There appears to be acknowledgment across perspectives that thousands of immigrants were on waiting lists when the policy was in place in 2019.
Objective Deep Dive

The March 24, 2026 Supreme Court oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado represent a critical juncture for asylum law in the United States. The metering policy originated in 2016 under the Obama administration during a surge of Haitian asylum seekers, was formalized and expanded under Trump's first term, ended in 2020 during the pandemic, and was formally rescinded by Biden in 2021. The policy's seemingly modest operational purpose—limiting daily processing capacity—has become a flashpoint for competing visions of immigration law and executive authority.

The central legal dispute hinges on a deceptively simple phrase: what does it mean to "arrive in" the United States? Under U.S. law, noncitizens can apply for asylum when they are "physically present in the United States" or when they "arrive[] in the United States," after which they are screened by border officials and channeled into the asylum system. The Trump administration argues "arrive in" requires actual physical presence within U.S. borders, while asylum advocates contend someone at a port of entry actively attempting to present themselves has "arrived." The metering policy, when in place, frustrated the ability of tens of thousands of migrants to move forward in seeking asylum. What left-leaning outlets emphasize—the policy's humanitarian costs documented in makeshift camps—the administration characterizes as manageable temporary delays during capacity constraints. Notably, even the Biden Justice Department, defending the policy in the Ninth Circuit, argued it was "reasonably based on demonstrated capacity constraints," though Biden ultimately abandoned the policy. This suggests the legal and practical questions are genuinely complex, not merely matters of ideology. Several justices struggled audibly with where to draw the line—questions about people in line, at the port's threshold, or wading the Rio Grande reflected genuine uncertainty about any bright-line rule. What remains unresolved is whether the Trump administration will actually resurrect metering if permitted, under what conditions, and whether alternative mechanisms exist for managing border surges that might prove less contentious.

The case also reflects broader institutional questions about the Supreme Court's proper role. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the Court should rule on a policy no longer in effect, noting "we have a lot of hypotheticals regarding how this policy may have worked in the past, how it's possibly going to work in the future, but we don't have a policy in effect right now." One legal analyst raised concern that the Supreme Court shouldn't decide hypothetical questions, and the policy's current inactivity "ought to be fatal to the Supreme Court's power to decide this case." A decision favoring the Trump administration would not immediately implement metering but would authorize its future use—a ruling on potential executive power rather than immediate harm. The outcome will likely turn less on which side marshals the better policy argument and more on how five justices answer the textual and historical question of what Congress meant by "arrive in" in 1996.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets employed humanitarian and rights-focused language, emphasizing suffering in makeshift camps, treaty obligations, and Congressional intent to protect vulnerable people. Right-leaning sources used administrative and executive-authority language, focusing on border management, capacity constraints, and statutory text interpretation. Both sides quoted directly from justices' questions and arguments, but left outlets tended to pair administration positions with immigration advocates' counter-narratives, while right outlets emphasized competence concerns and precedent.

✕ Key Disagreements
Meaning of "arrive in the United States"
Left: Left-leaning analysts argue the government's interpretation "isolates the word 'in' at the expense of making the rest of the statute nonsensical," and that for more than three decades, U.S. government regulations have acknowledged noncitizens attempting to enter the country are entitled to be inspected and processed.
Right: The Trump administration argues that under challengers' reading of the law, the phrase "arrives in the United States" would mean "stopped outside the United States," which "defies the statutory text."
Humanitarian impact and practical consequences
Left: Advocates say the policy created a humanitarian crisis during Trump's first term as people who were turned away settled in makeshift camps in Mexico as they waited for a chance to seek asylum.
Right: Conservative supporters like U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz argue that without metering it would "entrench that chaos" at the border.
International treaty obligations
Left: Asylum advocates contend Congress carefully crafted the asylum system to ensure the United States lives up to its treaty obligations toward those fleeing persecution, and the turn back policy flouted both.
Right: The Trump administration's legal team argues the U.N. Convention does not apply outside the United States, and even if it did, what the convention bars is "returning someone to a foreign country," which the metering policy doesn't do.
Whether people can return to apply later
Left: Immigrants' rights groups documented that thousands of immigrants were on waiting lists during the metering era, suggesting many never got a second chance.
Right: The Trump administration maintains that people turned away one day could potentially come back later, characterizing it as temporary capacity constraints: "It's saying our port is at capacity today, try again some other day."