Supreme Court Likely To Revive Obama-Era Rule on Asylum-Seekers
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a major immigration case involving a Trump-era border policy that restricted how asylum seekers could present themselves at ports of entry along the southern border—setting up a high-stakes legal battle over presidential authority and federal immigration enforcement.
The dispute centers on the practice known as “metering,” a policy under which border officials limited or delayed the number of migrants allowed to request asylum at official entry points. The policy was later ended by the Biden administration, but President Donald J. Trump has pushed to preserve or restore broader executive flexibility over how asylum claims are processed.
The administration’s position is that immigration enforcement and border management fall primarily under executive and legislative authority—not judicial control.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer defended the government’s appeal, arguing that the lower court’s ruling improperly limits the federal government’s ability to manage the border.
“The Constitution assigns the authority to regulate the border to the political branches, rather than the judiciary. The decision below improperly undermines Congress’s authority to establish asylum policy, referencing its ties to active policies. It also ‘significantly encroaches upon the executive branch’s authority to regulate the nation’s borders,'” Sauer said.
The government contends that border officials must retain discretion in processing arrivals, especially at high-traffic ports of entry, and warns that unrestricted access could overwhelm the asylum system.
Opponents of the policy, including immigrant rights groups and asylum seekers involved in the case, argue that metering unlawfully blocked vulnerable individuals from exercising their right to seek protection under U.S. law.
“The government’s turnback policy constituted an unlawful strategy to evade these obligations by physically obstructing asylum-seekers at ports of entry and hindering their ability to cross the border for protection,” attorneys for the plaintiffs said. “At-risk families, children, and adults escaping persecution were left in hazardous circumstances, where they encountered violent attacks, abduction, and mortality.”
The legal challenge was originally brought in 2017 by asylum seekers and the nonprofit organization Al Otro Lado, which supports migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. The group has defended the lower court ruling that found aspects of the policy unlawful and is prepared to argue its position before the Supreme Court.
The legal debate also touches on broader questions about how asylum law is implemented. Federal statute allows individuals physically present in the United States—or at its borders—to apply for asylum if they demonstrate a credible fear of persecution. However, the government has historically adjusted procedures to manage surges in migration.
During earlier administrations, including both Obama-era and Trump-era policy shifts, border agencies experimented with different tools to manage processing capacity. These included informal limits on entry at ports of entry and later formalized guidance under DHS during 2018.
The Trump administration also implemented additional restrictions in 2019 requiring migrants to seek asylum in third countries before applying in the United States, a policy later challenged in court and eventually rescinded under the Biden administration.
At issue before the Supreme Court now is whether prior court rulings improperly restricted executive authority by permanently blocking enforcement of certain asylum procedures for a defined group of migrants.
Legal experts supporting the challengers argue that the case may not require Supreme Court intervention at all. Kelsi Brown Corkran of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection said the dispute is narrowly tailored.
“While the current administration’s border policies are subject to impending legal challenges, none of the plaintiffs’ assertions in those cases hinge on the issue raised by the petition here,” she said. “The court’s determination of the issue at hand would consequently constitute little more than an advisory opinion.”
The Justice Department declined to comment on the Court’s decision to hear the case, while DHS officials did not respond to questions about whether any form of the metering policy could be reinstated.
Supporters of the administration’s position argue that restoring flexibility in asylum processing is essential to maintaining border security and preventing system overload, especially amid continued migration pressure at the southern border.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could have sweeping implications for how asylum policy is administered in the United States—clarifying the balance of power between the executive branch, Congress, and the judiciary in one of the most politically charged areas of federal law.