The United States Supreme Court has granted the Trump Administration’s request to review the 9th Circuit’s decision in a case concerning the management of southern border.
Challenged in this case is the use of “metering” — a tactic that has been employed by both Democratic and Republican administrations — in which officers are granted the authority to turn away individuals on the Mexico side of the border without granting a screening or hearing.
While the Department of Justice has argued that metering is a critical tool for effectively maintaining the border, critics have called it an “illegal scheme.”
In a statement shared by counsel and advocacy groups for asylum seekers, it was suggested that the government’s policy “circumvent[s]” the requirements laid out in the law by “physically blocking asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry and preventing them from crossing the border to seek protection.”
“Vulnerable families, children, and adults fleeing persecution were stranded in perilous conditions where they faced violent assault, kidnapping, and death,” they wrote.
USA Today reported that the DOJ did not respond to their request for comment on this matter.
Under the 1986 Immigration and Nationality Act, asylum seekers are anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum.
The 9th Circuit’s ruling in this case, which will now be subject to review by the United States Court, determined that it would be redundant to interpret the phrase “physically present” as having a meaningfully distinct interpretation from “arriving in.”
Instead, the divided panel of judges ruled that the language “encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are standing on.”
The government’s appeal advocates for a much different understanding of the text, arguing that “in ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders.”
Not unique to the Trump Administration, metering was employed by former President Barack Obama (D) for a period resulting in hundreds of Haitian asylum seekers being turned away at California ports of entry.
The policy was later formalized under President Donald Trump’s (R) watch before being rolled back by the Biden Administration, with some exceptions.
The current Trump Administration indicated in its petition to the Supreme Court that it wants to retain the ability to formally revive the practice once again “when conditions justify doing so.”
“The court of appeals, however, held that the practice violates the [Administrative Procedures Act] and is contrary to law,” the petition states. “The court thus removed a critical tool from [Department of Homeland Security]’s toolbox for addressing border surges, ‘seriously harm[ing] our country’s ability to manage its borders.’”
It is expected that the Supreme Court will hear this case at some point next year in anticipation of a ruling coming by June.
