The federal government has agreed to review a legal challenge to “metering,” a controversial tactic used to deport asylum seekers who cross its borders but are not allowed to cross.
The justices reviewed a lower court’s decision on Monday that found “metering” to be an unlawful impediment to the asylum process by President Donald Trump’s administration.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California, had previously decided the case, Al Otro Lado v. Noem. According to that court, “metering” violated US law that grants non-citizens the right to seek asylum in the country.
The phrase “Metering” refers to the practice of refusing asylum seekers who enter the country through “at capacity” border officials.
Without any safeguards or a setbacks, asylum seekers who were denied entry were frequently stranded on the Mexican side of the southern border.
In a two-to-one majority of the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling in 2024, the court concluded that this action constituted a “withholding” of asylum rights rather than merely a delay.
The argument over “metering”
The migration advocacy group Al Otro Lado, which assisted in the case, announced in a news release on Monday that it would “look forward to presenting [its] case] to the Supreme Court, which has a six-to-three conservative majority.”
The advocacy group claimed in a statement that the Ninth Circuit had made a valid conclusion that our immigration laws require the government to inspect and process people seeking asylum at ports of entry and allow them to file legal claims there.
According to the government, “the turnback policy was an illegal scheme to circumvent these requirements by physically preventing asylum seekers from crossing the border to seek protection.”
Al Otro Lado claimed that the “metering” policy placed asylum seekers in risky conditions along the Mexican border where they could face extortion from corrupt officials and criminal networks.
It stated that “violent families, children, and adults fleeing persecution were stranded in perilous conditions where they faced violent assault, kidnapping, and death.
Individuals who are fleeing persecution can seek asylum within its borders under US law. People who are at risk of being attacked for their race, religion, nationality, political views, or social affiliations are among the protected groups.
Successive governments have long encouraged asylum seekers to show up at authorized ports of entry rather than through irrational channels to file their claims.
Advocates point out that “metering” appears to convey the opposite message: that failing to show up at a port of entry could mean you’ll be denied for an indefinite period of time.
However, the Trump administration has argued that “metering” is a necessary tool to stop abuse in the asylum system in general and has attempted to restrict asylum applications.
According to the Trump administration’s attorneys, “metering” does not violate asylum laws because it applies to applicants who have simply crossed the border without crossing it.
The US Department of Justice used a reference from World War II to claim that “Allied forces did not arrive in Normandy while they were still crossing the English Channel.”
In American football, it compared crossing the border to scoring a touchdown. When a running back is stopped at the one-yard line, he doesn’t “arrive in” the end zone, according to the Justice Department.
US law restricting asylum
The practice of “metering” started in 2016 when border security officials began detaining asylum seekers. The federal government cited capacity issues as a result of a growing influx of immigrants, and the practice became official in 2018.
The first lawsuit was filed in 2017. Among the organizations representing 13 immigrants in the case were organizations like the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Immigration Council.
After a federal court upheld the practice, “Metering” was ultimately stopped under President Joe Biden in 2021. However, additional restrictions on the asylum process have been put in place, and legal proceedings over the tactic have since continued.
In response to a larger debate over its asylum policies, the Trump administration defends “metering.”
Trump signed an executive order effectively outlawing asylum applications at the southern US border on January 20. This was the first day of his second term.
A different legal challenge has been brought against that asylum ban. The ban was overturned by US District Judge Randolph Moss in July, arguing that it essentially establishes an “alternative immigration system” distinct from the protections that have been established.
That decision has also been challenged by the Trump administration.
In response to the widespread persecution that occurred during the Holocaust and World War II, the asylum system was largely established as a result of recent government attempts to restrain asylum seekers as part of a wider immigration crackdown.
For instance, Trump campaigned for a second term using a strategy that aimed to significantly reduce immigration to the US.
Since then, his administration has petitioned other nations to support its efforts to reform the asylum and refugee system. A Trump official organized a panel on the topic of “Global Refugee Asylum System: What Went Wrong and How to Fix It” on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September.
The Trump administration then set the lowest refugee admissions cap in US history, a month later in October.
In the fiscal year 2026, only 7,500 refugees would be permitted to enter the US, according to a federal filing. According to the statement, “other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination” would receive priority.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply