The Supreme Court is set to review a key immigration policy that former President Trump championed. This policy stopped many migrants from applying for asylum as they reached the southern border. Initially, it was introduced during President Obama’s term, became more formal under Trump, and was scrapped by President Biden in 2021. However, Biden’s administration continues to defend it in court.
Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, argues that the policy is essential for managing border surges and preventing overcrowding. This case is just one of several contentious immigration issues before the Supreme Court this session, including attempts to end birthright citizenship.
The current administration hasn’t explicitly said whether it will bring back the “metering” policy. Yet, backing it in court shows their intention to keep it as a potential tool to manage migrant numbers, especially as other strict measures face legal challenges.
The legal debate centers around whether migrants who are stopped by federal agents outside the U.S. are covered under laws that require officials to process their asylum claims. The government claims that if a migrant is halted in Mexico, they haven’t “arrived” in the U.S. and thus don’t qualify for the asylum process. This interpretation has been met with strong opposition from immigrant rights groups, who argue that current immigration laws should protect those trying to enter the U.S. for safety.
This type of policy has historical roots. When Obama introduced it in 2016, officials at the border faced a spike in Haitian asylum seekers. The situation worsened under Trump, which led to legal challenges from organizations like Al Otro Lado, advocating for asylum seekers. A federal judge in California later found the policy unlawful, affirming that migrants must be processed upon arrival.
Legal experts like Steve Vladeck argue that the Supreme Court should not hear a case based on a policy that is not currently in effect. This highlights the complexities of immigration law and the fluctuating policies that impact vulnerable populations.
Under federal law, officials must assist migrants fleeing persecution. Yet, the metering policy enabled agents to turn away those seeking help, raising humanitarian concerns. Critics have noted that this created dire conditions in Mexico, leading to makeshift camps filled with people without proper food or safety. Some migrants even attempted dangerous crossings into the U.S., resulting in fatalities.
Comparisons have been made to past events, like the tragic story of the MS St. Louis during World War II, where Jewish refugees were denied entry into the U.S., illustrating how policies can have devastating impacts on human lives.
The current environment remains challenging, with Biden’s policies encouraging migrants to use an app for scheduling entry appointments at ports of entry. However, many still find themselves exposed to harsh conditions while awaiting their turn. As the legal battles continue, the fate of these policies could shape the future of asylum in America.
Groups like HIAS warn that the existing policies may leave many in dangerous limbo, unable to access the legal protections intended for them. Advocates argue for a compassionate approach that restores the right to asylum and ensures safety for those seeking refuge.
For more information about immigration laws and current policies, visit the [American Immigration Council](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org).
