The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to revive a policy known as 'metering,' which limited the number of asylum seekers allowed to apply for entry at the US-Mexico border each day. The justices overturned a lower court order that had blocked the practice, which was previously used during the Obama administration and Donald Trump's first term.
Background and Humanitarian Impact
Advocates argued that metering created a humanitarian crisis, forcing thousands of migrants to wait in unsafe makeshift shelters in Mexican border cities. The Trump administration contended the policy was necessary to manage a surge in asylum seekers. Although the policy is not currently in effect, other restrictions on asylum seekers remain in place.
Federal attorneys argued that metering is a critical tool used by presidents of both parties and should remain available. They noted that people turned away could return later, though lines were reportedly thousands of people long when the policy was active.
Legal Dispute Over Asylum Rights
Under US law, migrants who arrive in the country must be allowed to apply for asylum and be screened for fear of persecution. The Justice Department argued that individuals stopped by authorities before crossing have not technically 'arrived,' so immigration agents are not required to process their claims. However, attorneys for asylum seekers countered that the law has long required screening for anyone arriving at a port of entry, and that blocking arrivals contradicts American ideals.
Metering was first implemented during the Obama administration when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the San Diego-Tijuana border crossing. It was later expanded to all border crossings from Mexico during Trump's first term. The policy ended in 2020 when the government introduced stricter restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.
Court Rulings and Supreme Court Decision
In 2021, a California-based federal judge ruled that metering violated asylum seekers' rights and the law requiring screening. A divided appeals court panel affirmed the ruling, but nearly half of the judges on the full San Francisco-based court voted to rehear the case, signaling potential interest from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision now allows the Trump administration to potentially reinstate the policy.
