The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over whether President Donald Trump has the legal authority to limit asylum processing at official ports of entry through a policy known as “metering.” This allows U.S. border officials to turn away asylum seekers—sometimes temporarily—when they say they lack the capacity (space, staff, or resources) to process them. The Court’s decision, expected by June, could reshape how any administration manages surges at the border and determine how far the executive branch can go in restricting access to asylum without explicit congressional authorization.
The legal fight is rooted in how U.S. immigration law treats people who present themselves at a port of entry. Advocates challenging metering argue that federal law requires officials to inspect and process all asylum seekers who “arrive” at a port, regardless of whether they have already crossed into U.S. territory. In their view, metering unlawfully denies access to the asylum system by forcing people to wait in Mexico (or outside the port) even when they are trying to seek protection through the official channel.
The lawsuit was brought by Al Otro Lado, an advocacy group that has represented asylum seekers and argued the policy violates statutory protections. The challengers contend metering is incompatible with the legal requirement to inspect asylum seekers who present at the border and that the policy effectively blocks people from exercising a right Congress created.
The Trump administration’s defense, hinges on a narrow interpretation of the word “arrive.” It argues that individuals who remain outside U.S. territory—physically on the Mexico side or not admitted into the country—have not “arrived” for purposes of the statute and therefore are not entitled to the same processing protections. Under that reading, turning people away at the port is lawful because the legal obligations attach only once the person is within the United States.
The case also carries institutional and political weight because metering has moved across administrations. Metering existed in some form during the Obama administration in response to rising arrivals, was formalized and expanded under Trump in 2018, and was rescinded by President Biden in 2021. Trump’s team has indicated it could reinstate the policy depending on conditions—making the Supreme Court ruling highly consequential for future border operations.
A key development favoring the challengers occurred in the lower courts. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2024 that metering was unlawful because it denied asylum seekers rights guaranteed by federal law. The Supreme Court’s review will determine whether that ruling stands nationwide and whether presidents can cite limited resources as justification for restricting asylum intake at ports.
This case is part of a broader Supreme Court docket filled with Trump-era immigration disputes, including cases on birthright citizenship and efforts to end Temporary Protected Status for certain groups—signaling that immigration policy is again a central arena for defining the balance of power between Congress, the president, and the courts.
