Supreme Court considers letting Trump administration revive restrictive
immigration asylum policy
[March 25, 2026]
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with whether the
Trump administration should be able to revive an immigration policy that
has been used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico
border.
Some conservative justices seemed receptive to the Justice Department's
push to overturn a lower-court ruling against the practice known as
metering. Immigration authorities limited the number of people who could
apply for asylum, saying it was necessary to handle an increase at the
border.
Advocates say the policy created a humanitarian crisis during President
Donald Trump's first term as people who were turned away settled in
makeshift camps in Mexico as they waited for a chance to seek asylum.
The policy isn't in place now, and Trump ordered a wider suspension of
the asylum system at the start of his second term.
The administration, though, argues that metering remains a “critical
tool" used under administrations from both parties, and should be
available if necessary in the future.
Some justices seemed open to that argument, though others raised
questions about whether the policy would allow people who entered the
country illegally to apply for asylum while new arrivals seeking legal
entry at the border could be blocked.
“Why would Congress privilege someone who illegally enters the United
States?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.
An attorney for the Trump administration maintained that people turned
away one day could potentially come back later. “It's saying our port is
at capacity today, try again some other day,” said Vivek Suri, assistant
to the solicitor general.
The Associated Press found thousands of immigrants on waiting lists when
the policy was in place in 2019.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, migrants who arrive in the
U.S. must be able to apply for asylum if they fear persecution in their
home countries. The legal dispute at the heart of the metering case
centers around the meaning of the words “arrive in."
The Justice Department argues it means anyone who is in the United
States already, so it doesn't apply to people authorities stop on the
Mexico side of the border. But immigration attorneys say the law has
long meant anyone who comes to a port of entry must be able to apply,
and it should stay that way.
“This life saving protection and more importantly, access to it is
enshrined in our laws and has been for decades now,” said Rebecca
Cassler, an attorney for the American Immigration Council, after
arguments.
[to top of second column]
|
An asylum seeker from Ecuador hugs her father as he is detained by
federal agents, July 31, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Olga Fedorova,
file)
Chief Justice John Roberts peppered an attorney for the migrants
with questions on exactly where someone must be to claim asylum. But
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that those questions are
hard to answer when the policy isn't being used.
“It just seems to me that we have a lot of hypotheticals regarding
how this policy may have worked in the past, how it’s possibly going
to work in the future, but we don’t have a policy in effect right
now that we can actually rule on,” she said.
Metering was first used during President Barack Obama’s
administration when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main
crossing to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico. It was expanded to all
border crossings from Mexico during Trump’s first term in the White
House.
The practice ended in 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic led the
government to greater restrictions on asylum-seekers. President Joe
Biden formally rescinded the use of metering in 2021.
Also that year, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant, an Obama
nominee, ruled that metering violated the migrants’ constitutional
rights and a federal law requiring officials to screen anyone who
arrives at the border seeking asylum.
A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed her ruling, but
nearly half of the judges on the full San Francisco-based appeals
court voted to rehear the case, a strong signal that may have caught
the justices’ attention.
People seeking refuge in the U.S. are able to apply for asylum once
they are on American soil, regardless of whether they came legally.
To qualify, they have to show a fear of persecution in their own
country because of specific reasons, such as their race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion.
Once people are granted asylum, they can’t be deported. They can
work legally, bring immediate family into the country, apply for
legal residency and eventually seek U.S. citizenship.
The metering case is one of several immigration suits the court is
considering this term, including Trump’s push to end birthright
citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally and the
administration’s effort to strip legal protections for migrants
fleeing from instability and armed conflict.
___
Video journalist Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
