US Supreme Court Allows Government to Deny Asylum at Border
Joseph Stepansky, Al Jazeera
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that government officials can deny asylum seekers at the southern border if they have not set foot on US soil, a decision that revives the controversial 'metering' policy. Human rights groups argue the practice circumvents domestic law and encourages dangerous migration routes. The ruling also allows the Trump administration to remove legal protections from hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Haitians under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that government officials may deny asylum seekers at the southern border with Mexico if they have not set foot on US soil. The ruling, issued Thursday local time, paves the way for President Donald Trump's administration to revive a controversial policy known as “metering,” in which immigration officers physically block asylum seekers from crossing the border.
Human rights groups argue that this practice is a way to circumvent domestic law, which requires the US to grant the right to apply for asylum to anyone arriving in the country. They also point out that physically blocking asylum seekers encourages more dangerous routes.
The 6-3 ruling was along ideological lines, with the court's six conservative justices voting in favor and the three liberal justices dissenting. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) stipulating that only an alien “arriving in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by a federal immigration officer.
“The wisdom of the policy of measuring the arrivals of aliens at the southern border is not a matter before us,” Alito wrote. “We decide only that an alien standing in Mexico does not 'arrive in the United States.' The INA does not give that alien the right to apply for asylum, nor does it require an immigration officer to inspect him.”
The ruling overturns a lower court decision that had found the “metering” practice illegal. The Trump administration, which has taken a hard line on all forms of immigration to the US, had appealed the lower court's decision.
The practice predates Trump, with former President Barack Obama using “metering” to turn people away at the southern border during his final year in office amid a significant surge in crossings. Trump formalized the strategy during his first term, allowing border agents to deny asylum applications when they deemed there were insufficient resources to process them. President Joe Biden's administration ended the practice in 2021.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority ruling allows the White House to “circumvent” legal procedures designed to ensure every asylum case is assessed individually. She also highlighted the cruelty of the government turning away asylum seekers who had escaped persecution and reached the US border, only to be rejected. “They may do so even when the asylum seeker is standing at the threshold of a port of entry designated to admit all aliens seeking entry into the country. Even when the port has capacity to inspect the alien, including a trained asylum officer to process the application,” she wrote. “Even when the asylum seeker will almost certainly be persecuted or killed if turned away.”
Sotomayor added that “the majority's illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: 'in.'” She argued that the majority had not considered “the statutory context and history” of how the word is used.
The ruling came shortly after a federal judge in early June ordered the Trump administration to lift a separate pause on processing asylum applications, which the administration had imposed due to the so-called border emergency.
In another immigration ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove legal protections from hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Haitians living in the US under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). This status is granted when it is deemed unsafe for citizens of a country to return home due to armed conflict, political instability, or natural disaster.
Approximately 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians are believed to currently live in the US under TPS. After Thursday's ruling, those with TPS risk losing their work permits and could face deportation. Justice Alito again wrote the majority opinion, stating that US law on TPS “clearly forbids” judicial review of the executive branch's decision. Alito also rejected a lower court's finding that Trump's actions toward Haitians were potentially motivated by “racial animus.” Plaintiffs in that case had pointed to Trump's campaign trail comments, including spreading unsubstantiated claims that Haitians living in Ohio were killing and eating pets.
