The US Supreme Court will review the legality of "metering," a practice that turned migrants away before they could cross the US–Mexico border to seek asylum. A divided appeals court held that asylum protections apply to people at ports of entry "whichever side of the border they are standing on," a ruling the Trump administration asks the Court to overturn. Immigrant-rights group Al Otro Lado says the turnback policy was illegal and left vulnerable migrants in dangerous conditions. The case may determine whether asylum seekers must be physically inside the United States to apply for protection.
Supreme Court to Decide Whether Border "Metering" Can Block Asylum Seekers
The US Supreme Court will review the legality of "metering," a practice that turned migrants away before they could cross the US–Mexico border to seek asylum. A divided appeals court held that asylum protections apply to people at ports of entry "whichever side of the border they are standing on," a ruling the Trump administration asks the Court to overturn. Immigrant-rights group Al Otro Lado says the turnback policy was illegal and left vulnerable migrants in dangerous conditions. The case may determine whether asylum seekers must be physically inside the United States to apply for protection.
04:03 AM, 11/18/2025Politics
Supreme Court to weigh challenge to border "metering" that turned away asylum seekers
The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider a contentious policy known as "metering," under which officials turned away migrants and prevented them from crossing the US–Mexico border to present asylum claims. The Biden administration rescinded the practice, but the Trump administration has asked the Court to rule on its legality in case it is reinstated.
The case centers on the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows an "alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States" to apply for asylum. Last year, a divided federal appeals court interpreted that language to cover potential asylum seekers at ports of entry "whichever side of the border they are standing on." The Trump administration is asking the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to overturn that interpretation.
"In ordinary English, a person 'arrives in' a country only when he comes within its borders," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a court filing. "An alien thus does not 'arrive in' the United States while he is still in Mexico."
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant-rights organization representing asylum seekers, welcomed the Court's decision to take up the case. The group said the government's turnback policy illegally circumvented statutory inspection and processing requirements and left vulnerable families, children and adults stranded in dangerous conditions where they faced assault, kidnapping and even death.
The dispute comes against a backdrop of broader changes to US migration policy. Last month the administration announced plans to cut the annual refugee admissions ceiling to 7,500 for fiscal 2026 — a dramatic reduction from the more than 100,000 annual admissions under the previous Democratic administration — and to prioritize certain groups, including white South Africans.
How the Supreme Court rules could determine whether officials may prevent migrants from approaching ports of entry to seek protection or whether the statute's asylum protections apply to people at those ports even if they are technically on foreign soil. The decision to hear the case signals the justices will address a high-stakes question about the scope of asylum protections and the government's authority at the border.