On Tuesday, March 24th, the Supreme Court discussed whether the Trump administration is able to revive the restrictive immigration policy known as “metering.” The controversial asylum policy was first introduced in 2016 by the Obama administration, and then formalized by President Trump during his first presidential term in 2018. In 2021, the Biden administration rescinded the policy, which still continues to be defended in court by the United States Department of Justice.
The restrictive immigration policy known as “metering” involves turning away asylum-seekers at the border before they step into the United States. In doing so, asylum-seekers are prevented from formally requesting protection.
The Federal Law currently states that if asylum seekers meet the definition of an individual who has suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, they must be processed by the government. However, to be processed by the government, the individual must be physically present in the United States.
While the policy is not currently implemented and officials have not explicitly expressed interest in its revival, the current Administration has continued to support the policy in court and demonstrated an intention to use the policy as a backup. The case before the courts, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, asks the Supreme Court to define whether noncitizens have “arrived in the United States” if they are stopped on the Mexican side of the United States – Mexico border, under the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
At the hearing on Tuesday, the court had oral arguments from Vivek Suri, Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, who represented the Trump administration, and Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court and appellate attorney, who represented asylum seekers. Vivek Suri presented the argument that you cannot arrive in the United States if you are standing in Mexico. Kelsi Corkran alternatively argued the United States has the obligation to avoid sending refugees back to countries where they would be prosecuted, as under the Refugee Act of 1980, and therefore, those obligations extend to noncitizens arriving at the U.S. border for asylum.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could reverse the Ninth Circuit’s 2024 ruling that it is “unlawful” to turn asylum seekers away, and instead allow noncitizens to be turned away by the federal government’s policy before they can reach the U.S. border with Mexico.
Contact an Asylum Attorney Today
For the past 40 years, Reeves Immigration Law Group has helped individuals with their asylum applications and achieved their desired results in some of the most complicated cases. We understand that this is a confusing, scary, and difficult time with consistent changes in legislation. If you or your family members are currently applying for asylum, contact one of our asylum attorneys today, and our experienced and skilled immigration team will help craft a personalized approach for your specific needs.
