Supreme Court weighed asylum policy allowing border agents to block migrants
Supreme Court justices appeared receptive Tuesday to reviving Trump's asylum metering policy allowing border agents to block migrants from entry.
Objective Facts
The Supreme Court weighed a policy that would allow agents at U.S. borders to block migrants from entering the country to seek asylum, with the justices seeming more receptive to it on Tuesday. The metering policy prevented migrants arriving at the southern border from starting the process of applying for asylum and was started under President Barack Obama, championed by Trump during his first term, and later rescinded under President Joe Biden. A majority of the court's conservative justices signaled during oral arguments that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection. The court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Immigrant rights groups challenging the policy received support from roughly two-dozen Democratic members of Congress, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Amnesty International USA, with faith leaders gathering outside the courthouse. Advocates told the court the policy "quickly created a humanitarian crisis in Mexico," with asylum seekers turned away facing weeks and months without food, shelter, or safety, and some attempting to enter between ports and dying while crossing the Rio Grande or Sonoran Desert. International law obligates the U.S. to protect asylum seekers from being returned to dangerous countries, but interviews show the turnback policy exposed asylum seekers to serious harm including violence and exploitation, with asylum seekers stuck in dangerous conditions, a matter of life, death, and fundamental human rights. Asylum attorney Kelsi Corkran argued that in the government's view "the phrase 'arrives in the United States' has no meaning," and 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," with the turn back policy flouting both. Al Otro Lado director Nicole Elizabeth Ramos stated asylum seekers "are not asking for the 100% guaranteed chance to stay. They're asking for access to the legal process". Immigration advocates contend metering prevented people from getting to the border and saying their fears about harm don't count if they haven't physically reached it. Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the humanitarian toll and legal obligations, focusing on specific harms like death at the border, dangerous living conditions in Mexico, and what advocates view as Congress's clear intent to protect asylum seekers at ports of entry. They largely omit discussion of port capacity management or the government's border security rationale.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Tedd Budd, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, and Josh Hawley, along with Representative Darrell Issa, supported the administration's defense of metering, writing that "we already know what happens without metering because the Biden Administration stopped using it". The administration contends there is bipartisan opposition to the Ninth Circuit's ruling, which they argue "deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry". The administration stated it would like to reinstate metering "if and when border conditions justify," describing it as an "important tool in the government's toolbox for dealing with border surges when they occur," giving workers at ports flexibility to let in migrants if they determined there was "sufficient space and resources to process them". Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri argued "You can't arrive in the United States while you're still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case," citing a 1990s case backing the government's decision to send back Haitian asylum seekers intercepted at sea. The government argued the Ninth Circuit ruling violates the presumption against extraterritoriality, stating "The phrase 'arrives in the United States' does not even plausibly, much less clearly, cover aliens in Mexico". The Associated Press found thousands of immigrants on waiting lists when the policy was in place in 2019, which conservatives point to as evidence of need. Right-leaning coverage emphasizes border management challenges, executive authority, and capacity constraints. It highlights that the policy was used under Obama and that without it, borders become overwhelmed. The framing treats metering as a reasonable management tool rather than a humanitarian problem.
Deep Dive
Metering originated under President Obama in response to Haitian asylum surges and was later formalized by Trump before being rescinded by Biden, hindered by several lower court rulings that said it was unlawful. During the Trump administration, officers on the U.S. side of the border physically stopped migrants from stepping onto U.S. soil and turned them back to Mexico, with the first Trump administration formalizing this "turnback" policy in 2018. In 2021, a federal judge in California ruled in favor of 13 asylum seekers in a class-action lawsuit alleging the policy was unlawful, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling. Both sides genuinely disagree on statutory interpretation and policy necessity. Conservatives argue the statute's phrase "arrives in" requires physical presence within U.S. territory—a straightforward reading that preserves executive discretion. Progressives counter that "arrives in" at a port of entry, even without crossing the border line, should trigger legal protections, arguing Congress's intent is clear from legislative history and treaty obligations. Conservatives get right that this interpretation preserves executive flexibility in border management; progressives correctly note that thousands were stranded in Mexico with no processing. However, conservatives understate humanitarian harms documented by researchers, while progressives avoid engaging seriously with capacity challenges that justify some screening process. Even some conservative justices noted the issue may not end litigation over the meaning of "arrives in" and that the government could simply stop seekers on the other side of whatever line the court draws, calling "the whole thing seems kind of artificial". A decision is expected by the end of June 2026.