October 1, 2026
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government may limit how many people can apply for asylum each day at U.S.-Mexico border crossings, reviving the legal authority for a policy used by multiple administrations.
The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice, known as metering, that began under President Barack Obama and was expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term.
Immigrant advocacy groups said the tactic created dangerous conditions for asylum seekers waiting in Mexico, while the Trump administration said it was necessary to manage large numbers of people arriving at the border.
The policy is not in place now, though authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers. The Department of Homeland Security did not say if they plan to revive it, but applauded the ruling. “This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border,” said James Percival, the agency's general counsel.
The administration argued that metering is a critical tool that’s been used by presidents of both parties and should stay available. Federal attorneys say people turned away at the border could come back later, though lines were thousands of people long when the policy was in place before.
The case is one of several immigration suits being considered this term, including Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship. The high court also allowed the administration Thursday to end temporary deportation protections for some migrants from countries affected by instability and armed conflict.
Federal law allows people who arrive in the United States to apply for asylum and receive an initial screening if they say they fear persecution in their home countries.
The Justice Department argued that people stopped by authorities haven’t arrived in the country, so immigration agents don’t have to let them apply.
Attorneys for asylum seekers argued that the policy conflicts with U.S. asylum law and the country’s long-standing commitment to providing refuge.
Alito wrote that federal asylum protections apply only once a person has arrived in the United States, and he rejected the argument that approaching a port of entry was enough to trigger those protections.
“A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” Jhe wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, saying that the majority’s opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
In an unusual exchange, Alito voiced a response after she finished speaking. He expressed surprise that she had read her dissent out loud and defended his opinion by pointing out that the policy had been used during two presidential administrations. “I won’t add anything more to that,” Alito said.
Metering was first used under President Barack Obama 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.
It ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.
The same year, a California-based federal judge found that metering violated the asylum seekers' rights and the law requiring screening. A divided appeals court panel affirmed the ruling, but nearly half of the judges on the full San Francisco-based court voted to rehear it, a development that may have contributed to the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case.
Share with others
