Supreme Court to Review Trump-Era Asylum Policy Limiting Border Applications
The Supreme Court will review a Trump-era "metering" policy that limited asylum applications at the US-Mexico border, despite its rescission, after lower courts ruled it illegal.
TownhallThe Supreme Court Takes Up Major Case on Asylum at the Southern Border
Daily SignalSupreme Court to Consider If Migrants Must Cross Border to Seek Asylum
Al JazeeraUS Supreme Court to weigh ‘metering’ of asylum claims at US-Mexico border
Associated PressSupreme Court will review an old policy used to turn away asylum seekers at the US border
Overview
The Supreme Court will review a Trump-era "metering" policy that restricted asylum seekers from filing claims at U.S.-Mexico border ports, despite its formal rescission by President Biden.
The "metering" policy, initiated by Obama and expanded by Trump, turned away asylum seekers at the border during surges, preventing claim processing and sparking legal challenges.
Immigrant rights groups challenged the policy, and Judge Bashant ruled it violated migrants' rights and federal law requiring screening, a decision upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court.
Individuals can apply for asylum in the U.S. upon arrival, regardless of legal entry, if they fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on this significant immigration case in late winter or early spring, with a final decision expected by the end of June, potentially reshaping asylum processes.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources cover this story neutrally, focusing on the factual progression of the legal challenge to a Trump-era asylum policy. They explain the policy's mechanics, the court's decisions, and the arguments for Supreme Court review without using loaded language or emphasizing one side over another, providing a straightforward account of the judicial process.