Supreme Court Clears Way for Trump Administration to Revive Metering at U.S.-Mexico Border

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive “metering,” a policy used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, in a 6-3 decision that overturned a lower court order blocking the practice.

“Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to revive restrictive immigration policy The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U”

ABC News

The ruling overturned a limit on the number of people who could apply for asylum each day that had been used first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term, with the policy not in place now after President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.

ABC News

ABC News said the justices’ decision came as the Trump administration argued metering was necessary to deal with an increase of asylum seekers at the border, while federal attorneys said people turned away at the border could come back later.

SCOTUSblog described the policy as systematically turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the U.S.-Mexico border, with Customs and Border Patrol officials implementing it by standing along the border and turning back noncitizens without valid travel documents before they could enter the United States.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “In ordinary speech,” no one would say a person “arrives in” a place before entering it, and he said the context of “arrives in the United States” supports that ordinary meaning.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and said the consequences of the decision were predictable: “More people will die.”

SCOTUSblog reported that Sotomayor warned the ruling would lead to more people attempting to cross the border illegally and that “some will make it while others will not,” framing the decision as lethal in its expected effects.

ABC7 News

ABC News quoted Alito’s response after Sotomayor finished speaking, with Alito expressing surprise that she had read her dissent out loud and defending his opinion by pointing out the policy had been used during two presidential administrations.

The Associated Press reported that the Department of Homeland Security applauded the ruling, with James Percival saying, “This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border.”

The Associated Press also said the decision could give people a “perverse incentive” to enter the country illegally if they can’t count on being able to legally apply for asylum at a port of entry, a concern Sotomayor raised and that Alito’s opinion said was overblown.

The Supreme Court’s asylum decision was paired with another 6-3 ruling allowing the Trump administration to end deportation protections for migrants fleeing instability and armed conflict, as the Associated Press said it issued “two major immigration opinions” on Thursday.

WRAL reported that the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow the Trump administration to end legal protections for migrants fleeing violence and natural disaster in Haiti and Syria, exposing “hundreds of thousands more people to potential deportation.”

WRAL said the Department of Homeland Security can now end temporary protected status, a program that protects a total of 1.3 million people from 17 countries, and it described the asylum metering ruling as another step that could limit how many claims are processed each day.

EWTN News said the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s restrictive asylum policies that faced strong opposition from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and some other Catholic advocacy groups, and it quoted Anna Gallagher calling both decisions “devastating for our clients.”

EWTN News also quoted Gallagher saying, “We walk with them as legal advocates, seeing the injustice of our laws play out firsthand,” linking the court’s outcomes to the legal system’s impact on vulnerable immigrants and those accompanying them.