Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to revive restrictive policy for asylum seekers

The Supreme Court on June 25 cleared the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive a restrictive border policy that could again block some asylum seekers from entering the United States to apply for protection.

In a 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the justices sided with the administration in a dispute over whether migrants waiting on the Mexican side of a U.S.-Mexico port of entry have already “arrived in the United States” for asylum purposes.

The ruling does not automatically restart the policy. But it removes a major legal obstacle and could allow federal officials to bring back metering, a practice that limits how many asylum seekers are processed each day and can turn some people back before they physically enter U.S. territory.

What the court decided

The case centered on a narrow but consequential legal question: whether someone waiting at the border but still on the Mexican side counts as having arrived in the United States under asylum law.

By ruling for the administration, the court strengthened executive discretion over border processing and gave officials more room to decide how many asylum seekers can begin the process at ports of entry.

The decision reversed lower-court losses for the government. It also puts pressure on advocates who had argued that the policy unlawfully cut off access to asylum for people seeking protection at the border.

How metering developed

Metering is not a new border tool. It was first used at the border in 2016, later expanded during Donald Trump’s first term, and then rescinded by President Biden in 2021.

The policy limits the number of asylum seekers who can be processed each day at ports of entry. People who arrive when a port is full can be forced to wait, sometimes in Mexico, until officials allow them to proceed.

Supporters say the practice helps manage congestion and border surges. Critics say it blocks access to asylum and leaves migrants exposed to danger while they wait outside the United States.

Who is affected

The most immediate impact falls on asylum seekers at U.S.-Mexico ports of entry, especially people who may again be told to wait before they can enter U.S. processing lines.

If metering returns, migrants may be forced to remain in Mexico while they try to access the U.S. asylum system. That raises the humanitarian concerns cited by critics, including safety risks and uncertain conditions at border crossings.

The ruling also matters for the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, which would be responsible for any operational restart. It gives the administration more latitude to shape how ports of entry manage asylum intake.

The case was brought by Al Otro Lado, an immigrant-rights organization that has challenged the policy on behalf of affected migrants.

What happens next

The next question is whether DHS moves quickly to reinstate metering and issue operational guidance to specific ports of entry.

Another open issue is how broadly the administration would interpret the ruling in practice. One possibility is a narrow rollout at selected crossings; another is a wider reimplementation along the border.

Immigrant-rights groups may also seek new emergency relief or fresh litigation if the policy is reactivated. That could set up another round of court fights over how far the ruling reaches.

For now, the decision marks a significant shift in the legal landscape at the border. It gives the administration a stronger hand in deciding who may begin the asylum process at ports of entry and under what conditions.