Trump has been working hard to enact his agenda. But this could bring it all to a screeching halt.
Because the Supreme Court is set to decide President Trump’s fate in a key case.
The Supreme Court on Monday took up a high-stakes immigration case that could hand President Donald Trump’s administration a powerful tool to manage border surges, allowing officials to limit asylum processing at ports of entry without being forced to inspect every migrant who approaches from Mexico—a practice known as “metering” that has been a cornerstone of Trump’s tough-on-borders strategy since his first term.
The case, Al Otro Lado v. Noem, stems from a 2017 lawsuit by immigrant rights groups challenging the metering policy, which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) implemented amid overwhelming migrant flows. Under metering, agents at busy crossings like San Ysidro in California or El Paso in Texas would cap daily entries, citing limited capacity, and turn back others to wait in Mexico—sometimes for weeks or months.
The policy, first used sporadically under President Barack Obama in 2016 during a Haitian migrant spike, was formalized and expanded in 2018 under Trump as crossings hit record highs, with over 400,000 apprehensions that fiscal year alone.
A federal district court in San Diego ruled in 2021 that metering violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which grants asylum eligibility to any noncitizen who “arrives in the United States,” and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that in a 2-1 decision in 2024.
The appeals court held that migrants presenting themselves at a port of entry—even if stopped on the Mexican side—count as having “arrived,” entitling them to immediate inspection and a chance to file claims. The dissenting judge argued that physical entry into U.S. territory is required, a view the Trump administration is now pressing the justices to adopt.
Trump’s border blueprint: Metering as a surge safeguard
Solicitor General John Sauer, in the administration’s July petition, called the 9th Circuit’s ruling a dangerous overreach that “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border.”
Before the litigation, Sauer wrote, officials had “repeatedly addressed migrant surges by standing at the border and preventing aliens without valid travel documents from entering.” The decision, he argued, now grants a statutory right to asylum applications and inspections for those halted in Mexico, hamstringing enforcement during crises.
The administration’s push aligns with Trump’s broader second-term agenda to restore order at the southern border. On his first day back in office, January 20, Trump signed an executive order suspending most asylum claims at the border entirely—a sweeping measure separate from metering but facing its own legal battles in lower courts.
Officials have signaled they may revive metering “as soon as changed border conditions warranted,” even after President Joe Biden rescinded it in 2021 amid criticism that it stranded families in cartel-controlled Mexican border towns, exposing them to violence, kidnapping, and extortion. Under Biden, crossings plummeted after Title 42 expulsions ended, but Trump’s team credits preemptive deterrence for the drop, with apprehensions falling below 100,000 monthly by mid-2025.
Supporters, including a bipartisan group of lawmakers in an amicus brief, blasted the 9th Circuit for “usurping the policymaking authority of the political branches.” The decision, they wrote, “effectively seized that exclusively political power by creating an entitlement to seek asylum for potentially millions of aliens whom Congress never authorized such relief.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) echoed this in a statement Monday, praising the high court’s review as a chance to “restore sanity and security to our borders, empowering President Trump to protect American communities from unchecked migration.”
The other side: Rights groups warn of humanitarian fallout
Advocates for migrants, led by the nonprofit Al Otro Lado, hailed the 9th Circuit’s ruling as a victory for due process, arguing metering was an “illegal scheme to circumvent” the INA by physically blocking asylum seekers at ports. “Vulnerable families, children, and adults fleeing persecution were stranded in perilous conditions where they faced violent assault, kidnapping, and death,” their attorneys said in a statement.
They contend the policy sends a chilling message that official channels are futile, pushing more migrants toward dangerous irregular crossings and cartel smugglers.
The case arrives at the Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, tilting odds toward the administration’s view of executive flexibility in immigration enforcement.
Oral arguments are expected early next year, with a decision by June—potentially reshaping how future presidents handle border pressures amid ongoing global migration strains from violence in Central America and economic woes in Venezuela. For Trump, a win would bolster his promise to “seal the border” and prioritize legitimate claims over what he calls a “broken” system exploited by traffickers.
