Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States appeared receptive on Tuesday to arguments from the administration of Donald Trump defending the government’s authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials say the US-Mexico border is too overwhelmed to process additional claims.
Get today's headlines by email 
The case centers on a policy known as “metering,” which allows immigration officers to refuse entry to migrants seeking asylum at border crossings when authorities say they lack the capacity to process more applications.
Trump’s administration has asked the court to overturn a lower-court ruling that found the policy violated federal law. The measure was originally halted after Joe Biden rescinded it early in his presidency in 2021.
The dispute is separate from a broader asylum restriction announced by Trump after returning to office last year. That policy also faces ongoing legal challenges.
Dispute over legal definition
The central legal question concerns whether migrants stopped on the Mexican side of the border can be considered to have “arrived” in the United States under federal asylum law.
Current US law allows migrants who arrive in the country to request asylum and requires immigration officials to inspect their claims.
Arguing for the administration, Justice Department lawyer Vivek Suri told the court that migrants waiting in Mexico cannot be treated as having entered the country.
“You can’t arrive in the United States while you’re still standing in Mexico,” Suri said during the hearing, arguing that the legal interpretation should settle the dispute.
Several justices explored the limits of that definition during questioning.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked how close a person must be to the border to qualify as arriving in the United States. She questioned whether migrants approaching areas without formal ports of entry could claim the same legal status.
The court also heard arguments from attorneys representing migrant advocacy groups challenging the policy.
Sharp questions from liberal justices
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed government lawyers over whether the policy contradicts US laws designed to protect refugees.
She suggested the policy effectively bars asylum seekers while allowing other travelers to enter through border checkpoints.
Sotomayor compared the situation to passengers arriving on flights to US airports, noting they may be considered to have arrived in the country even before physically stepping onto American soil.
The lawsuit against the policy was brought by Al Otro Lado, which provides legal and humanitarian support to migrants at the border.
The group first filed its challenge in 2017, arguing that US law requires border officials to inspect all asylum seekers who present themselves at official crossings.
In 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that immigration authorities must process asylum claims from migrants who reach border entry points, even if they have not yet physically crossed into the United States.
Policy history and next steps
Border authorities began informally limiting asylum processing during a surge in migration in 2016 under Barack Obama. The Trump administration formally implemented the metering policy two years later.
The Biden administration ended the practice in 2021, but the current administration has indicated it may reinstate the policy if border conditions change.
In court filings, the government said metering could resume “as soon as changed border conditions warranted that step.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June.
The court has already sided with the Trump administration in several immigration-related disputes since Trump returned to office, including emergency rulings allowing authorities to deport migrants to third countries and revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants.
Join the discussion? 
Already a member? 
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 26 March 2026