The US Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 24) heard arguments over the Trump administration’s authority to turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border under a policy known as “metering.” The policy allows officials to limit the number of asylum claims processed when crossings are deemed overwhelmed.

Legal dispute: What counts as ‘arrival’? At the centre of the case is whether migrants stopped on the Mexican side of the border can be considered to have “arrived” in the United States under federal law.

Representing the administration, Justice Department lawyer Vivek Suri argued: “You can't ‘arrive in the United States’ while you're still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case.”

Justices question policy’s legality Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns about whether the policy undermines protections for asylum seekers.

“They’re letting everybody else in… but they’re not permitting the people who come to the line… who want to claim refugee status,” she said.

Drawing a comparison, she added: “Someone on a plane arriving to land in LaGuardia… they’re knocking on the door.”

Policy origins and legal challenge The metering practice began in 2016 under Barack Obama and was formalised during Donald Trump’s first term in 2018. It was later rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.

The legal challenge was brought by advocacy group Al Otro Lado. In 2024, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law requires agents to process asylum seekers at official crossings, even if they have not yet entered the country.

Trump Administration signals policy revival The administration has indicated it may revive the metering policy depending on border conditions. It has argued in court filings that “arrive in” means physically entering the United States, not merely approaching it.

Immigration battles ahead The case is one of several major immigration disputes before the Supreme Court. The court has recently backed Trump on key measures, including deportations and revoking protections for migrants.

Upcoming hearings will address the legality of restricting birthright citizenship and efforts to end temporary protections for migrants from Haiti and Syria.

Verdict expected by June A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June, with significant implications for US asylum policy and border enforcement.

(With Reuters inputs)

Also Read | Senate approves Trump loyalist Markwayne Mullin as next DHS secretary