The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant immigration case involving a former border policy that restricted asylum seekers from entering the United States through official ports of entry along the southern border. The case centers on the legality of a practice known as “metering,” which limited the number of migrants allowed to present asylum claims at border crossings.
President Donald Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the policy violated federal immigration law. Although the Biden administration ended the metering practice in 2021, the Trump administration argues that the lower court’s ruling could limit the federal government’s ability to manage future immigration policies and border operations.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer has maintained that the Constitution gives Congress and the executive branch broad authority over immigration and border enforcement. He argued that the appellate court’s decision improperly restricts that authority by requiring officials to process asylum claims from individuals who arrive at the border, even when entry limitations are in place.
The dispute traces back to 2016, when increasing numbers of asylum seekers, including many Haitians, arrived at the San Ysidro port of entry in California. Federal officials responded by slowing admissions, and the Department of Homeland Security later formalized the metering policy in 2018. Under the guidance, border officers were instructed to limit entry and manage the flow of migrants seeking protection.
Immigrant rights advocates challenged the policy, arguing that it unlawfully prevented vulnerable people from exercising their right to seek asylum. The lawsuit was brought by the nonprofit organization Al Otro Lado and several asylum seekers.
Lower courts ultimately sided with the migrants, finding that the government had improperly blocked access to the asylum process. The Supreme Court’s upcoming review will determine whether those rulings should stand and could shape the future of U.S. asylum policy and border enforcement authority for years to come.
