Supreme Court Evaluates White House Authority to Limit Asylum Processing

The U.S. Supreme Court weighs the Trump administration's power to "meter" asylum seekers at the border, a key legal test for the President’s immigration crackdown.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 24, 2026, 8:20 AM EDT

Source: Reuters

The Legal Core of the Metering Dispute

At the heart of the proceedings is the "metering" policy, a practice that allows border officials to limit the number of people who can request asylum each day at designated ports of entry. This policy effectively forces migrants to wait in Mexico indefinitely before their claims are even processed. While the administration argues that this is a necessary administrative tool for managing "overburdened" facilities, critics contend it creates a legal limbo that violates statutory obligations to inspect every migrant who arrives at the border.

Defining "Arrival" in the Digital and Physical Age

The central legal question revolves around a specific phrase in federal law: "arrives in the United States." The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of advocacy groups, stating that migrants at the threshold of a port of entry have effectively arrived and must be processed. However, Justice Department lawyers are challenging this interpretation, arguing that an individual hasn't "arrived" until they have physically crossed the boundary line into U.S. soil. This semantic distinction carries immense weight, as it determines whether the government can legally block asylum seekers while they are still standing on the Mexican side of the bridge.

Historical Context and Policy Reversals

The history of metering spans three administrations, reflecting the growing pressure on the southern border. While the practice began under President Barack Obama in 2016 during a migrant surge, it was formalized and expanded during Donald Trump’s first term in 2018. Following a rescission by the Biden administration in 2021, the current Trump administration is seeking to revive the policy as part of a broader, multi-pronged immigration crackdown. Notably, this specific case is separate from the administration's sweeping asylum ban enacted last year, which is also navigating separate legal challenges.