Supreme Court Backs Trump on Asylum Seeker Deportations

The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to the Trump administration Thursday, ruling that federal authorities have the legal authority to limit the number of migrants who can apply for asylum at the southern border each day.

The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of a policy known as “metering,” according to New York Post, rejecting arguments from immigration advocates that the practice violates federal asylum law. The policy caps daily asylum applications at ports of entry along the US-Mexico border.

Immigration activists had argued that foreign nationals should be considered to have “arrived” in the United States once they reach the border, and that federal law guarantees them the right to apply for asylum regardless of how they entered the country.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito rejected that interpretation in the majority opinion, noting that common sense dictates a person cannot arrive somewhere before actually entering that location. The justice wrote that the context of immigration statutes supports this ordinary-meaning interpretation of arrival.

The Trump administration defended the metering policy as essential for managing the overwhelming surge of migrants at the southern border. Officials emphasized that individuals turned away under the policy retain the ability to return and attempt to apply on subsequent days.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson celebrated the decision as a vindication of lawful immigration enforcement. She said the administration remains focused on restoring integrity to the immigration system and addressing widespread abuse of asylum procedures encouraged under the previous administration, while prioritizing American citizens.

Asylum Criteria and Benefits

Under current law, asylum seekers must demonstrate credible fear of persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Those granted asylum gain protection from deportation, work authorization, the ability to bring immediate family members, and pathways to permanent residency and citizenship.

Sharp Dissent From Liberal Justices

All three justices appointed by Democratic presidents dissented from the ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the unusual step of reading her dissent aloud from the bench, adding remarks not included in her written opinion that the majority decision extinguishes the light of the Statue of Liberty’s torch.

Sotomayor warned of dire consequences from the ruling, predicting increased deaths, more illegal border crossings, and migrants forced to walk dangerous stretches of the border searching for ports that will process them. She argued more people will face violence after being turned back for immutable characteristics.

A visibly irritated Alito responded that he would have added substantially more to his own oral presentation had he known Sotomayor would read her dissent. The conservative justice noted the metering policy had been implemented under presidential administrations from both parties.

Alito concluded his opinion by clarifying that the Court was not evaluating the wisdom of the metering policy itself, but only determining that a foreign national standing in Mexico has not legally “arrived” in the United States and therefore possesses no right under statute to apply for asylum or demand inspection.

Policy History Across Administrations

The Obama administration first implemented metering in 2016 when large numbers of Haitian migrants appeared at the primary San Diego port of entry from Tijuana, Mexico. President Trump expanded the practice to all Mexican border crossings during his first term.

Federal authorities terminated metering in 2020 when broader pandemic-related restrictions took effect during the COVID-19 crisis. Former President Joe Biden formally abolished the policy in 2021.

That same year, a federal judge in California ruled that metering violated both asylum seekers’ rights and federal screening requirements. A divided panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, though nearly half the full court’s judges voted to rehear the case—a strong indicator that likely prompted Supreme Court review.

With information from New York Post