The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the legality of a contentious border policy known as 'metering', a practice formally rescinded by President Joe Biden in 2021 but which remains the subject of significant legal debate.
What is Asylum Metering?
The policy of metering involved US border agents actively limiting the number of individuals who could approach official ports of entry to seek asylum. By capping the daily intake, officials effectively prevented many migrants from setting foot on American soil, which is a prerequisite for lodging an asylum claim under US law.
This approach was first utilised during President Barack Obama's administration in response to a significant influx of Haitian migrants at the main crossing from Tijuana, Mexico, to San Diego. The practice was later expanded across all Mexican border crossings during Donald Trump's first term.
A Legal Challenge and its Journey to the Supreme Court
The legal battle against metering culminated in a 2021 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant, who found that the policy violated both the constitutional rights of migrants and federal statutes requiring officials to process anyone who presents themselves seeking asylum.
This decision was affirmed by a 2-1 ruling from a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The strength of the legal challenge was further signalled when twelve of the twenty-nine judges on the San Francisco-based appeals court voted to rehear the case, an action that likely drew the attention of the Supreme Court justices.
Despite the policy being suspended in 2020 due to pandemic-related border restrictions and officially ended by President Biden in 2021, the Trump administration pursued an appeal. The Justice Department argued that the lower court rulings had removed “a tool that administrations of both parties have deemed critical for controlling the processing of inadmissible aliens during border surges.”
Broader Implications for US Asylum Law
At the heart of this case is the fundamental right for individuals to seek asylum. Under US law, a person can apply for asylum once they are physically present in the country, irrespective of their manner of entry. To be successful, they must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Granting asylum provides a permanent future in the United States. Asylees are protected from deportation, granted legal working rights, and can apply to bring immediate family members to join them. They are also eligible to apply for legal permanent residency and can eventually seek US citizenship.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in this landmark case in the late winter or early spring of 2026, a proceeding that will be closely watched by immigration advocates and policymakers on both sides of the debate.
