Supreme Court lets Trump revive border metering for asylum seekers

A 6-3 Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for the Trump administration to revive border metering for asylum seekers, letting officers stop people at ports of entry before they physically set foot in the United States. The decision stripped away a key protection for people waiting on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border and gives the administration room to move immediately.

In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, decided June 25, the court held that a noncitizen stopped before entering the country has not yet “arrive[d] in the United States” for purposes of asylum processing. That reading revives the practice known as metering, under which officers at ports of entry can limit how many people may seek asylum each day. The lower-court cases were numbered 22-55988 and 22-56036, and the dispute was argued on March 24.

The practical change is stark. Under the ruling, a person who reaches a port of entry but is turned away on the Mexican side can be told to wait, rather than being processed into the asylum system. For migrants fleeing persecution, that means the first point of contact with the United States can now be a shutdown instead of a screening. Plaintiffs in the case said the policy had already kept thousands from seeking asylum and sent people back to danger, while the administration defended it as a border-management tool during surges and overcrowding at ports of entry.

The decision matters because it removes a safeguard that had forced the government to process asylum seekers at the border before turning them away. Now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security can use metering again without waiting for another round of litigation to unwind the Supreme Court’s ruling. A family arriving after a long wait at a southern border crossing could be held outside the line, denied immediate access to the asylum process, and left stranded in Mexico with no guaranteed place in the queue.

The ruling also fits a broader rollback. On the same day, the court in Mullin v. Doe allowed the Trump administration to end temporary protected status for people from Haiti and Syria, a move affecting more than a million immigrants. That case was argued on April 29 and involved Haitian and Syrian TPS holders challenging the termination while litigation was still pending.

Together, the two decisions give the administration faster leverage over who can remain in the country and who can even get through the gate. At the border, that means fewer asylum claims will be heard before someone is turned back.