Hold onto your hats, folks—the U.S. Supreme Court just dove headfirst into a contentious battle over migrant asylum rights at the southern border.

The crux of the matter is whether the so-called “metering” policy, which stops migrants from seeking asylum before they even set foot on U.S. soil, holds up under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Breitbart reported. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would tackle this thorny issue, revisiting a policy that denies migrants at ports of entry the chance to make their asylum claims without crossing the border first.

Revisiting the Controversial Metering Policy

This “metering” approach, once active under President Donald Trump, was shelved by the Biden administration, but Trump is now pushing for a court ruling to potentially bring it back.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has rolled out aggressive measures to tighten border control and accelerate deportations, signaling a hardline stance on immigration.

With a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, the administration is hoping for a favorable interpretation that could clear the way for reinstating such restrictions without legal blowback.

Legal Battle Over Border Definitions

The Immigration and Nationality Act states that any individual “physically present” in the U.S. or who “arrives” here can apply for asylum, but the debate hinges on what “arrives” really means.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued in filings, “In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders.”

That’s a tidy little semantic jab, but it sidesteps the human reality of desperate folks standing mere feet from safety, only to be turned away on a technicality.

Advocates Push Back on Turnback Rules

Last year, a split appeals court decided that the law applies to asylum seekers at ports of entry, no matter which side of the line they’re on, challenging the government’s narrow view.

Immigration rights group Al Otro Lado, representing affected migrants, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, arguing that current laws mandate processing asylum claims at the border.

They stated, “Our immigration laws require the government to inspect and process people seeking asylum at ports of entry and allow them to pursue their legal claims in the United States” (Al Otro Lado, statement).

Human Cost of Border Policies

Al Otro Lado further contends that turning people back before they cross is not just a policy quirk—it’s a dangerous roadblock that strands vulnerable families, children, and adults in perilous conditions.

These folks, often fleeing persecution, face risks like assault, kidnapping, or worse while stuck in limbo, a grim consequence of bureaucratic gatekeeping that prioritizes procedure over people.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration recently slashed the annual refugee cap to a historic low of 7,500 for fiscal year 2026, down from over 100,000 under Biden, and set a peculiar priority for white South African refugees—a move that raises eyebrows about fairness in an already strained system.