Supreme Court Backs Border ‘Metering’ Policy in Major Win for Trump’s Immigration Agenda
6-3 ruling gives federal officials broad authority to turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry, reinforcing executive discretion over border processing
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration another significant immigration victory Thursday, ruling 6-3 that federal immigration officials may turn away asylum seekers at ports of entry along the U.S./Mexico border when authorities determine they lack the capacity to process additional claims. The decision overturns a 2024 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that had concluded Congress intended to allow virtually any migrant presenting at an official port of entry to seek asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Court’s five other conservative justices, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissent from the bench on behalf of the Court’s three liberal members.
The legal dispute centered on the meaning of the statutory phrase “arrives in the United States.” The majority concluded that migrants waiting on the Mexican side of the border have not yet “arrived” in the United States and therefore are not entitled to invoke the statutory protections requiring inspection and processing of asylum claims. The Court emphasized the ordinary meaning of the statutory language and the longstanding presumption that U.S. laws generally do not apply outside the nation’s territorial boundaries unless Congress clearly says otherwise.
The ruling validates the controversial “metering” practice first used on a limited basis during the Barack Obama administration in 2016 before being dramatically expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term. Under the policy, Customs and Border Protection officers limited the number of asylum applicants processed each day, often requiring migrants to wait in Mexico for weeks or months before they could present their claims. Critics argued the practice exposed vulnerable migrants to dangerous conditions while effectively denying access to asylum protections guaranteed by federal law. Supporters countered that the policy was a necessary operational tool for managing surges in migration when ports of entry lacked sufficient personnel and facilities.
Although the Biden administration formally rescinded the metering policy in 2021, the practical effect of Thursday’s decision extends well beyond a discontinued program. The Trump administration has indicated it may revive metering, and the ruling strengthens the executive branch’s legal authority to regulate access to the asylum system at ports of entry. More broadly, the decision reinforces the Court’s willingness to defer to presidential authority in managing border operations, provided those actions are grounded in statutory authority.
The ruling also carries broader political implications. It represents another in a series of Supreme Court decisions favoring the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies and signals that the Court’s conservative majority remains receptive to arguments emphasizing border security and executive flexibility over expansive interpretations of asylum access. At the same time, immigrant advocacy organizations are expected to continue challenging broader Trump-era asylum restrictions that remain pending in lower courts, meaning the legal battle over U.S. asylum policy is far from over even after this significant victory for the administration.
