The US Supreme Court has handed President Donald Trump a major legal victory by ruling that federal authorities may turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border when officials determine that crossings are too overwhelmed to process additional claims.
In a 6-3 decision led by the court’s conservative majority, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that had found the controversial “metering” policy violated federal immigration law. The Trump administration has indicated it may revive the practice, which was rescinded by former President Joe Biden in 2021.
The ruling marks one of two immigration-related decisions issued by the Supreme Court on Thursday in favor of the Trump administration.
Court Defines When an Asylum Seeker ‘Arrives’
At the center of the case was the interpretation of federal law allowing migrants who “arrive in the United States” to apply for asylum and undergo inspection by immigration officials.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that migrants stopped on the Mexican side of the border have not legally “arrived” in the United States.
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person arrives in a place before entering it,” Alito wrote, arguing that the statute should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning.
The decision effectively permits border officials to delay or refuse processing asylum applications at official ports of entry when they determine that capacity has been exceeded.
Liberal Justices Warn of Humanitarian Consequences
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a forceful dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warning that the ruling could have severe humanitarian consequences.
According to Sotomayor, allowing immigration officers to block asylum seekers before they step onto US soil could force more migrants to attempt dangerous unauthorized crossings or return to countries where they face persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or political opinion.
In an unusual exchange from the bench, Alito responded directly to the dissent, defending the majority’s reasoning and suggesting he would have expanded his oral remarks had he known the dissent would be presented in court.
Trump Administration Welcomes Decision
James Percival, general counsel at the US Department of Homeland Security, praised the ruling, calling it “an important tool” for securing the southern border.
The administration has signaled that it may reinstate metering if future border conditions warrant such action, although it has not announced a specific timeline.
Meanwhile, Melissa Crow, an attorney representing the challengers in the case, criticized the decision, arguing that it weakens long-established legal protections for asylum seekers and raises concerns about executive authority over immigration policy.
Long-Running Legal Battle
The legal challenge was originally brought in 2017 by advocacy group Al Otro Lado. In 2024, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigration officials were required to inspect asylum seekers presenting themselves at designated ports of entry, even if they had not physically crossed into US territory.
The Supreme Court’s decision reverses that interpretation and restores broader discretion to federal officials managing border operations.
Metering was first used during the Obama administration amid increasing migrant arrivals and was formally expanded under Trump’s first term before being ended by the Biden administration.
Separate Immigration Rulings Continue
In another immigration case decided the same day, the Supreme Court also cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals.
The court is also expected to issue a decision soon on the legality of Trump’s directive seeking to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, another closely watched immigration dispute.
