BN
|
PoliticsAI Desk•7 views

Supreme Court to Review 'Metering' Asylum Policy at Southern Border

The U.S. Supreme Court will examine the 'metering' asylum policy, which turned away migrants at the southern border before entry. Initially started under Obama and expanded by Trump, it was rescinded by Biden but remains defended in court. The legal dispute focuses on whether migrants stopped in Mexico are legally considered 'arrived' under federal law. Lower courts have ruled the policy unlawful, citing humanitarian risks and violations of asylum statutes. Advocates warn of dangerous conditions in Mexico, drawing parallels to historical refugee refusals. The decision could impact future border control measures and is part of a series of immigration cases before the high court.

Ad slot
Supreme Court to Review 'Metering' Asylum Policy at Southern Border

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday regarding the legality of the 'metering' policy, which turned away asylum seekers at the southern border before they could enter the country to apply for protection.

Policy Origins and Current Defense

  • The policy was first introduced under the Obama administration in 2016, formalized by President Trump in 2018, and rescinded by President Biden in 2021.
  • Despite rescission, the Justice Department has continued to defend the policy in court, indicating potential use as a backup border control measure.
  • Officials have not publicly stated whether they plan to revive the policy, but its legal defense underscores ongoing interest in restrictive immigration tools.

Core Legal Question

  • The case hinges on whether migrants stopped by federal agents on the Mexican side of the border are considered to have "arrived in the United States" under federal law, which mandates processing for asylum seekers.
  • Government Argument: Solicitor General D. John Sauer contends that "arrives in" requires physical entry, not proximity, and the policy is a "critical tool for addressing border surges."
  • Challengers' Argument: Immigration rights groups and affected migrants argue that Congress intended the law to apply to those presenting at ports of entry, regardless of border side, to ensure access to asylum processes.
Ad slot

Lower Court Rulings

  • A federal judge in California ruled the policy unlawful and certified a class of migrants protected from it.
  • In 2024, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, with Judge Michelle Friedland stating the policy violated federal law by withholding the duty to inspect asylum seekers at the border.
  • The appeals court noted that the ruling still allows the government "wide latitude" for border management.

Humanitarian Impact and Historical Comparisons

  • The policy created large bottlenecks in Mexican border towns, leading to unsafe living conditions, lack of resources, and deaths during attempted crossings.
  • Advocates, including HIAS, compare it to the 1939 refusal of the MS St. Louis, calling it a "legal no man's land" that endangers asylum seekers and contradicts congressional intent.

Broader Immigration Context

  • This case is among several immigration policies Trump seeks to have approved by the Supreme Court, including efforts to end birthright citizenship and deportation protections.
  • Biden's alternative, an app-based appointment system for asylum processing, was ended by Trump, and related legal challenges are ongoing in Washington, D.C.
  • Legal analysts note the Supreme Court's involvement may be unusual given the policy is not currently in effect, raising questions about the case's justiciability.
Ad slot