In a significant judicial decision, the United States Supreme Court has endorsed the federal government’s policy of “metering,” which involves the systematic return of asylum seekers before they physically reach the U.S.-Mexico border. This policy, initiated in response to a surge in asylum claims from Haitian immigrants outside San Diego a decade ago, was upheld by a 6-3 vote, aligning the justices with the approach defended by the Trump administration in the case of Mullin v. Al Otro Lado.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, described the central issue as straightforward. Addressing the statutory language, Alito asserted, “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—such as a house, city, or country—without entering it.” According to Alito, context supports the “ordinary meaning” of the phrase “arrives in the United States” utilized within relevant immigration statutes. The full Supreme Court opinion is accessible here.
The dissent, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, articulated concerns over the potential humanitarian consequences of the ruling. Sotomayor warned, “The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not.”
The policy of metering has been defined by the Customs and Border Patrol agency through physical interdictions at the border, barring entry to noncitizens without valid documentation, including those intending to seek asylum. This practice was formalized through a memorandum in 2018. Originally, an appellate decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had sided with the challengers, suggesting that noncitizens turned away under this policy had effectively “arrived in” the U.S. in terms of their eligibility for asylum processing. The ruling by the Supreme Court overturns this decision. More details regarding the appellate ruling can be found here.
The majority opinion further draws a distinction between attempted and actual entry into the U.S., with Alito underscoring Congress’s specific language choice. He noted that if Congress had wished to extend asylum application rights to individuals merely arriving at or near the border, it would have explicitly mentioned such terms.
The full analysis and case details are available through SCOTUSblog.