The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to overturn a lower-court order blocking the Trump administration from reviving “metering,” a policy that limits how many asylum seekers can apply each day at the U.S.-Mexico border. Advocates warned it created a humanitarian c
On the U.S.-Mexico border, asylum seekers can’t just arrive and be processed like a routine entry. For years, a contested policy known as “metering” has controlled the flow—limiting how many people could apply for asylum each day.
Thursday’s Supreme Court decision turned that dispute into something more immediate. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices cleared the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive the practice, overturning a lower court order that had blocked it.
The policy is not currently in place. Still, the court’s green light means federal authorities could reinstate a system that, when used previously, pushed thousands of migrants into waiting—often in makeshift shelters—until their turn came.
Advocates say metering produced a humanitarian crisis, with people settling in unsafe conditions while they waited to apply. The Trump administration says the approach is necessary in response to an increase of asylum seekers at the border.
The Department of Homeland Security did not say whether it plans to revive metering, but it praised the outcome. “This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border,” said James Percival, the agency’s general counsel.
Federal attorneys have argued that metering is a critical tool that’s been used by presidents of both parties and should remain available. Their view also carried the day on the central legal point: the Justice Department argued that people stopped by authorities haven’t arrived in the country. so immigration agents do not have to let them apply.
The court’s conservative majority agreed. Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door.”
For attorneys representing people seeking asylum, that interpretation clashes with the law’s meaning and purpose. They argued that federal law has long required screening for anyone arriving at a port of entry, and they said blocking arrivals disregards the nation’s ideals.
Even in the hearing room, the case carried sharp edges. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, saying the majority’s opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
After Sotomayor finished speaking, Alito responded in an unusual exchange. He said he was surprised she had read her dissent out loud and defended his opinion by pointing out that the policy had been used during two presidential administrations. “I won’t add anything more to that,” Alito said.
Metering has a history that stretches across multiple administrations. It was first used under President Barack Obama in a period when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main crossing to San Diego from Tijuana. Mexico. During President Donald Trump’s first term, it was expanded to all border crossings from Mexico.
The policy ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic. President Joe Biden formally rescinded metering in 2021. Around that same time, a California-based federal judge found metering violated asylum seekers’ rights and the law requiring screening. A divided appeals court panel affirmed the ruling. but nearly half of judges on the full San Francisco-based court voted to rehear it—an indication that the dispute could attract Supreme Court attention.
The case was brought by attorneys with the group Democracy Forward. After Thursday’s decision, that group condemned the ruling. “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and call on all Americans to demand that our government protect the families the Court today decided to keep in harm’s way. ” said President and CEO Skye Perryman.
They represented the group Al Otro Lado, whose executive director said the decision would mean a “hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable,” adding that it was “sure to result in many more lives lost.”
The court’s ruling also lands in a broader moment for immigration litigation. This case is one of several immigration suits the court is considering this term. including Trump’s push to end the restriction of birthright citizenship. On Thursday, the high court also allowed his administration to end deportation for migrants fleeing instability and armed conflict.
Under federal law, migrants who arrive in the U.S. must be able to apply for asylum and be screened for fear of persecution in their home countries. People seeking refuge can apply for asylum once they are on American soil, regardless of whether they came legally. To qualify. they must show a fear of persecution in their homeland for specific reasons—such as race. religion. nationality. membership in a particular social group. or political opinion.
If asylum is granted, people can’t be deported. They can legally work, bring in immediate family, apply for legal residency, and seek citizenship.
The Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t mean metering is back on tomorrow’s border line—authorities have said the policy is not currently in place. and the administration has not confirmed whether it will revive it. But the door the court opened Thursday gives the administration a path to do so. at a time when the stakes for asylum seekers—and the logistics of how fast they can be screened—are already being fought in court rooms and felt far closer to the border.
Supreme Court metering asylum seekers U.S.-Mexico border Trump administration Department of Homeland Security James Percival humanitarian crisis Statue of Liberty dissent immigration litigation