SCTOUS To Review Rescinded Trump Policy Of Blocking Asylum Seekers At Border
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will take up a major immigration case dealing with a Trump-era enforcement tool that prevented migrants from setting foot on U.S. soil before claiming asylum—a significant victory for President Donald J. Trump’s second-term border agenda even before arguments begin.
Under federal law, asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry are supposed to be processed. But in 2018, during Trump’s first administration, officials implemented a policy known as “metering,” which required border agents to turn back migrants attempting to request asylum and send them to wait in Mexico until space became available. The effort was designed to prevent chaos at overwhelmed ports of entry and curb the growing abuse of America’s asylum system.
A left-wing nonprofit, Al Otro Lado, along with several migrants, sued in California to shut the policy down. They found a sympathetic audience at the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that asylum seekers must be processed even if they have not yet crossed onto U.S. soil—essentially requiring border officials to admit anyone who simply shows up.
The Trump administration appealed the decision in July, and on Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case—signaling that the justices are willing to revisit whether presidents have the authority to control entry at the border.
Although the Biden administration scrapped metering and replaced it with looser policies widely blamed for worsening the border disaster, Trump’s legal team stressed that the authority must be preserved for the future.
“This administration and future administrations should keep the option of reviving that practice when border conditions justify doing so,” Trump officials argued, according to CNN.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer was blunt in his filing: “In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders. An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”
Immigration activists countered that such an interpretation would allow border officials to neuter the asylum process by physically preventing migrants from stepping onto U.S. soil.
The Court will hear arguments early next year, with a ruling expected by June.
Supreme Court Sides With Trump on Deportation Authority
The announcement comes as the Supreme Court has already handed President Trump another immigration win.
In a separate case, the Court ruled 6–3 to pause a lower-court injunction that sought to block deportations of migrants to third countries—nations such as Guatemala, Costa Rica, South Sudan, and others. Left-wing groups argued migrants should remain in U.S. custody until receiving additional asylum-related interviews.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, based in Boston, had attempted to impose nationwide restrictions on deportations by ordering the Trump administration to keep all such migrants in custody until completing “reasonable fear interviews.”
The Supreme Court rejected that overreach, allowing Trump’s enforcement strategy to move forward while litigation continues. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The decision marks yet another victory for the president as his administration continues restoring the tough immigration measures dismantled under Biden.