The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a defense by President Donald Trump's administration of the government's authority to limit the processing of asylum claims at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The court took up the administration's appeal of a lower court's determination that the "metering" policy, under which U.S. immigration officials could stop asylum seekers at the border and decline to process their claims, violated federal law. The policy was rescinded by former President Joe Biden, but Trump's administration has indicated it would consider resuming it.
The metering policy is separate from the sweeping ban on asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border that Trump issued after returning to the presidency on January 20. That policy faces an ongoing legal challenge which refers to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenges a ban that blocks all migrants "engaged in the invasion across the southern border" from claiming asylum or other humanitarian protection.Under U.S. law, a migrant who "arrives in the United States" may apply for asylum and must be inspected by a federal immigration official. The legal issue in the case is whether asylum seekers who are stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border have arrived in the United States.
U.S. immigration officials began turning away asylum seekers at the border in 2016 under Democratic former President Barack Obama amid a migrant surge. The metering policy was formalized in 2018 during the Republican Trump's first term in office, with border officials being permitted to decline processing asylum claims when ports of entry were at capacity. Biden, a Democrat, rescinded the policy in 2021.
Lawyers for Al Otro Lado and the asylum seekers they represents said they look forward to presenting their case to the justices. They said U.S. immigration laws require the government to inspect and process people seeking asylum at ports of entry and allow them to pursue their legal claims in the United States.
"The government's turn-back policy was an illegal scheme to circumvent these requirements by physically blocking asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry and preventing them from crossing the border to seek protection," the lawyers said in a statement.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case and issue a ruling by the end of June.