The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that asylum seekers physically stopped at the U.S. border have no legal right to seek asylum in the United States. The decision revives the Trump-era “metering” dispute, raises warnings from dissents and asylum advocates about block
For asylum seekers waiting at the southern border, the Supreme Court’s ruling landed like a door that was supposed to open—and didn’t.
On Thursday, the justices decided that people physically stopped by U.S. authorities at the border do not have a legal right to seek safety in the United States. In the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the question turned on whether someone could be considered “arriving” in the United States when border guards block them before they step onto U.S. soil.
The case grew out of the so-called “metering” policy. which began at the tail end of then-President Barack Obama’s administration and was systematized by President Donald Trump in his first term. Under metering. people seeking asylum in the United States by surrendering at ports of entry were turned away by the thousands after guards told them ports of entry had reached capacity and they had to return another time. The policy ended in 2024 after litigation against it, but the Trump administration revived the issue last year.
The litigation that brought the matter back to the Supreme Court also included allegations that metering produced brutal consequences. When the policy was in effect. metering led to hundreds of cases of assault. kidnap and murder of would-be asylum applicants who were turned away at the border. litigants said.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines. Alito delivered the opinion for the majority. He wrote that “the wisdom of the policy of metering alien arrivals at the southern border is not before us. ” adding that the court decided only that “an alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States.’” Alito continued that the [Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952] “neither entitles such an alien to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.”.
The case hinged on legal access to asylum procedures—specifically. whether a person stopped at the border could still qualify as “arriving” for asylum purposes. Alito rejected the respondents’ argument that metering should be treated as eligibility for asylum review even when immigration officers stop people from entering.
Alito also addressed the fears raised by respondents: that the government could use metering as a foundation to stop all asylum claims at legal ports of entry. He dismissed those concerns as overreacting to a hypothetical. “For present purposes. it suffices to say that the rescinded metering policy was never anything like that imagined future policy. ” Alito wrote. He asserted that if such a policy were ever adopted. it would be challenged quickly. though he did not declare it would be illegal. or that any challenge would succeed.
In his framing, the government’s policy “merely delayed entry by some aliens as a way of improving a situation” that interfered with inspection procedures and produced “unsanitary, inhumane, and sometimes dangerous conditions at ports of entry.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the three dissenting justices, saw the practical effect differently. Writing for the dissent. Sotomayor argued that the metering policy violated immigration officers’ duty to inspect people arriving at the border. including those who want to pursue asylum. She wrote that Thursday’s ruling “holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting foot onto U.S. soil.”.
Sotomayor said the majority’s reasoning fixated on the single word “in.” “Words. however. must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the statute as a whole. ” she wrote. She argued the majority ignored statutory context and history. along with what she described as the executive branch’s longstanding position: that any noncitizen arriving at the doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum. regardless of whether her foot crosses the threshold.
Sotomayor also rejected the idea that metering was only a delay rather than an erasure of asylum. She said Thursday’s decision would protect the federal government even if it decided to block asylum seekers “for a few hours, a few months, or forever.”
Those dissent concerns landed with force for people already involved in the case. Respondents reacted with disappointment. Skye Perryman. president and CEO of Democracy Forward—which represented 13 individual asylum seekers who challenged the metering policy—wrote in response to the court’s decision that the “federal executive branch is abandoning asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances in fear for their lives and putting thousands of people – including children – in dangerous and dire situations.” Perryman urged Congress to act to protect “persecuted people” and “the best of American values. ” and added: “Today. the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will put even more people in harm’s way.”.
The legal fallout is immediate: the ruling preserves the government’s power to add another hurdle for people trying to seek refuge legally.
The fight over asylum access has been shaped by American history as well. The right to seek asylum once a person has set foot on U.S. soil—“even for those who cross the border without authorization”—is enshrined in federal law. But humanitarian groups say the country has repeatedly failed refugees in the past. In 1939, hundreds of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis were not allowed to disembark on U.S. soil, and many later died in the Holocaust.
HIAS, a humanitarian group, argued in an amicus brief ahead of oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado—since renamed to Mullin v. Al Otro Lado after the confirmation of new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin—that Congress codified asylum protections at U.S. borders and created orderly procedures to assess claims from people who reach a port of entry. In its filing. HIAS said the policy at issue “flouts the law Congress enacted” and “wrongly turns back the clock. ” forcing people fleeing persecution into “arbitrary procedures. ” producing “crushing uncertainty. ” and leading to “prolonged sojourns in dangerous conditions in a legal no man’s land.”.
The decision also arrives amid a broader push by the Trump administration to restrict migration and asylum access. On his first day back in office. Trump declared an “invasion” on the southern border as a pretext for suspending asylum rights there. In April, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found Trump’s action to be unlawful.
Even with metering having ended in 2024 due to litigation, Thursday’s ruling reopens the door to physically turning back asylum seekers before they can trigger asylum eligibility—leaving advocates and dissidents warning that the law’s protections can be narrowed through border procedures.
Supreme Court asylum border guards metering policy Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 Donald Trump Barack Obama Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor Al Otro Lado Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Markwayne Mullin D.C. Circuit southern border