The Supreme Court seemed poised on March 24 to accept the Trump administration's argument that the government can block illegal immigrants from seeking asylum at the border.
The argument hinges on whether these people have "arrived in" the United States.
A group of 13 asylum seekers filed suit in 2017 to challenge a policy called “metering,” in which border agents, primarily at U.S. ports of entry, turn away asylum seekers to avoid overcrowding of border facilities. A federal law says that “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States ... may apply for asylum,” regardless of legal status.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived in the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked immigrants’ attorney Kelsi Brown Corkran.
Corkran said that, before the metering policy was implemented, the immigrants simply passed through a turnstile to make their asylum claim. There was no border agent to turn them away, and Congress had not envisioned that scenario when drafting the law.
Metering began under former President Barack Obama and continued until it was rescinding by former President Joe Biden in 2021—although his administration continued to defend its legality.
The asylum seekers argued that the policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires immigration officers to inspect “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.”
Corkran said that a person who presented themselves at the border had, for legal purposes, “arrived.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if the Trump administration intends to resume metering. Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri told her there were no immediate plans to do so, but the administration wants to reserve the right to do so in the future.