The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant immigration victory on Thursday, ruling that federal officials may turn away migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border before they formally apply for asylum. The 6-3 decision upheld the legality of the “metering” policy, a border management practice that sparked a rare and pointed public exchange between members of the nation’s highest court.

The ruling allows the government to continue limiting the number of migrants permitted to seek asylum at ports of entry on any given day. The policy, known as metering, was implemented during both the Obama and Trump administrations as a way to manage overwhelming numbers of asylum seekers arriving at the southern border.

Groups representing immigrants argued that migrants should be considered to have “arrived” in the United States the moment they reach the border. They maintained that federal immigration law guarantees the right to apply for asylum upon arrival, regardless of whether an individual entered the country legally or illegally.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito rejected that interpretation.

“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place.

“The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading.”

The Trump administration argued that the policy was a practical necessity during periods of heavy migration, noting that individuals who were turned away temporarily were free to return later and attempt to apply again.

“This is a tremendous win for the Trump Administration, the rule of law, and common sense,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “President Trump remains committed to lawfully restoring integrity to our immigration system, which includes tackling the egregious abuses to our asylum system that the prior administration encouraged. We will always put the American people first.”

Under U.S. law, asylum is available only to migrants who can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Those who receive asylum protection are allowed to remain in the United States, obtain work authorization, petition to bring immediate family members, pursue permanent residency, and eventually apply for American citizenship.

The Court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the unusual step of reading her dissent aloud from the bench and added remarks criticizing the majority’s ruling.

She said the decision “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”

In her written dissent, Sotomayor warned of what she believes will be the human cost of the Court’s decision.

“The consequences of today’s decision are predictable,” Sotomayor wrote. “More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not. More people will be forced to walk along the U.S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them. More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves … Because this is neither what Congress said nor what its words permit, I respectfully dissent.”

Alito responded afterward, noting that he would have expanded his own remarks had he known Sotomayor intended to read her dissent from the bench. He also emphasized that the challenged policy had been employed by administrations from both major political parties.

“I won’t add anything more to that,” concluded Alito, who finished his opinion by reminding: “The wisdom of the policy of metering alien arrivals at the southern border is not before us. We decide only that an alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States.’ The [law] neither entitles such an alien to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.”

Metering first appeared in 2016 under President Barack Obama after a surge of Haitian migrants reached the San Diego port of entry from Tijuana. During President Trump’s administration, the practice was expanded across all ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The policy ended in 2020 when stricter border restrictions were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. President Joe Biden later officially rescinded the metering policy in 2021.

That same year, a federal judge in California ruled that metering violated both federal asylum law and the rights of asylum seekers. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, although nearly half of the court’s active judges voted in favor of rehearing the case, signaling deep disagreement that ultimately paved the way for Supreme Court review.

{Matzav.com}