The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a 6-3 decision, the justices overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term.
What changed
Trump’s administration has said it may seek to revive the policy, known as “metering,” after it was dropped by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. The policy ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021. The same year, a California-based federal judge found that metering violated the 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, a strong signal that might have caught the attention of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling lifts that injunction. The Justice Department argued that people stopped by authorities haven’t arrived in the country, so immigration agents don’t have to let them apply. The court’s conservative majority agreed. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
Why it matters
This ruling has immediate practical consequences for asylum seekers and the practitioners advising them:
-
Metering may resume. The Department of Homeland Security did not say if it plans to revive it, but applauded the ruling, stating “This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border.” Once activated, the policy would cap the daily number of people permitted to apply for asylum at ports of entry, reverting to the daily limits imposed during Trump’s first term.
-
Litigation posture shifts. The lower court injunction that blocked metering is now void. Practitioners challenging the policy in future litigation will face a higher bar; they can no longer rely on an existing injunction to bar the practice. Any new suit would begin without that legal protection in place.
-
Humanitarian impact. Advocates said the tactic created a humanitarian crisis as thousands of people settled in unsafe makeshift shelters along ports of entry to await their turn for days or months. If metering is implemented, asylum seekers facing urgent danger may face extended waits before they can be screened for protection.
-
“Arrival” doctrine redefined. The Court held that asylum seekers stopped by CBP at the border—but not yet admitted into the United States—have not “arrived” for purposes of the statute requiring screening. This interpretation narrows asylum seekers’ statutory right to be assessed for credible fear before being turned away.
Way forward
-
Monitor DHS announcements. Check CBP and DHS press releases and official guidance for notice of metering implementation. When it launches, DHS typically announces the policy and daily caps publicly.
-
Adjust client expectations. If you represent individuals planning to seek asylum at the border, counsel them on the real possibility that daily caps will be in effect. Discuss timing, strategic waiting periods, and the risk of extended queues at ports of entry.
-
Preserve claims. For individuals already in U.S. territory and seeking asylum, this ruling does not affect their statutory right to apply (they have “arrived”). For those intending to present at a port, document intent and circumstance in advance, in case litigation revisits the scope of metering in future cases.
-
Stay informed on shadow docket activity. The Supreme Court may issue additional emergency orders on immigration enforcement this term. Subscribe to SCOTUS blog, the ABA’s immigration law section alerts, or agency guidance channels to track fast-moving developments.
Disclaimer
Fola Editorial is a publishing platform and software company, not a law firm. This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; you must consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to understand how this ruling affects your case or practice. Policy and judicial interpretation can change without notice; verify all claims against the primary source and current agency guidance before advising a client or filing any document.