The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider a legal challenge to a controversial tactic called “metering” used by the federal government to turn away asylum seekers who arrive at the border but are unable to cross.
On Monday, the justices granted a petition from President Donald Trump’s administration to reconsider a lower court’s ruling that “metering” is an unlawful impediment to the asylum process.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The case, known as Al Otro Lado v. Noem, had previously been heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California. That court found that “metering” violated federal law that gives noncitizens the right to apply for asylum in the United States.
“Metering” refers to the practice of border officials turning away asylum seekers arriving at official ports of entry into the United States because they are “at capacity.”
Rejected asylum seekers were often left stranded on the Mexican side of the southern border with no protection measures or timelines for when their asylum claims would be accepted.
A 2-1 majority of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2024 that such measures amount to “withholding” of asylum rights, not mere deferrals.
Conflict over “metering”
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant advocacy nonprofit that helped file the lawsuit, said in a news release Monday that it “looks forward to filing the lawsuit.” [its] The case will be brought before the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority.
“As the Ninth Circuit rightly concluded, our immigration laws require the government to screen and process asylum seekers at ports of entry and allow them to pursue their legal claims in the United States,” the advocacy group said in a statement.
“The government’s return policy was an illegal scheme to circumvent these requirements by physically interdicting asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry and preventing them from crossing the border in search of protection.”
Al Otro Lado also argued that “metering” policies place asylum seekers in dangerous situations on the Mexican side of the border, where they can similarly face extortion from criminal networks and corrupt officials.
“Vulnerable families, children, and adults fleeing persecution were left in dangerous situations where they faced violent assault, kidnapping, and death,” the report said.
U.S. law allows individuals fleeing well-founded fear of persecution to seek asylum within its borders. Protected groups include those facing violence because of their race, religion, nationality, political leanings, or membership in a particular social group.
Successive governments have long encouraged asylum seekers to present their claims at official ports of entry rather than crossing the border by irregular routes.
Supporters say the “meter system” appears to send the opposite message: If you show up at an official port of entry, you could be turned away indefinitely.
But the Trump administration is seeking to restrict asylum applications in general, arguing that “metering” is a necessary tool to prevent abuse within the asylum system.
Trump administration lawyers argue that “metering” does not violate refugee law because it applies to would-be applicants who arrive at the border but do not cross the border.
“Allied forces did not ‘arrive’ at Normandy while crossing the English Channel,” the U.S. Department of Justice said in a court filing, citing World War II.
He also used a sports metaphor, likening crossing the border to a touchdown in American football. “A running back does not ‘arrive’ in the end zone if he is stopped at the 1-yard line,” the Justice Department said.
Asylum restrictions in the United States
The practice of “weighing” began in 2016, when U.S. authorities at the border began turning away asylum seekers. The practice was formalized in 2018, with the federal government citing capacity issues amid a growing influx of arrivals.
The first lawsuit was filed in 2017. In addition to Al Otro Lado, groups such as the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Immigration Council are among the groups representing 13 immigrants in the lawsuit.
“Metering” was finally halted in 2021 under President Joe Biden after a federal court struck down the practice. However, legal proceedings surrounding this tactic have continued since then, and other restrictions have been placed on asylum procedures.
The Trump administration’s defense of “metering” comes as part of a larger debate over asylum policy.
On January 20, the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order effectively banning asylum claims at the US southern border.
The asylum ban is the subject of a separate legal challenge. In July, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss struck down the ban, saying it effectively created an “alternative immigration system” separate from the protections established by Congress.
The Trump administration also appealed the decision.
The asylum system was created primarily as a response to widespread persecution during the Holocaust and World War II, but in recent years various governments have sought to restrict asylum rights as part of a broader crackdown on immigration.
For example, Mr. Trump campaigned for a second term on a platform of drastically reducing immigration to the United States.
Since then, his administration has petitioned other countries to join the effort to overhaul the asylum and refugee system. In September, for example, Trump administration officials held a panel discussion on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly entitled “The Global Refugee Protection System: What Went Wrong and How to Fix It.”
A month later, in October, the Trump administration announced the lowest refugee admission cap in U.S. history.
Only 7,500 refugees will be admitted to the United States in fiscal year 2026, according to federal filings. The report said priority would be given to white Afrikaners from South Africa and “other victims of unlawful or unjust discrimination”.
But critics have dismissed Trump’s claims of anti-white “genocide” in South Africa as false.
