High court to review legality of ‘metering’ policy for asylum-seekers
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the legality of the “metering” policy, which was implemented during President Donald trump’s first term to limit asylum-seekers from reaching U.S. soil and making their claims. The policy was later rescinded by President Joe Biden and has not been reinstated since. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that individuals on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border who come into contact with border officials are considered to have “arrived” in the U.S. and thus have the right to claim asylum.The Justice Department argues this ruling limits the government’s ability to manage migrant surges and prevent overcrowding at ports of entry. The case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, represents the Supreme Court’s first major immigration-related border policy review for the current term. the decision could have meaningful implications for how the U.S. handles asylum claims and border management.
Supreme Court to review legality of ‘metering’ policy for asylum-seekers at the border
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear a challenge to a border policy aimed at preventing migrant surges by stopping asylum-seekers from reaching U.S. soil to make their claim.
The “metering” policy was implemented during President Donald Trump’s first term in 2018, but was rescinded by former President Joe Biden and has not been restored by the current Trump administration. The policy aimed to stop asylum-seekers from being able to “arrive” on U.S. soil to make their claim by stopping them before reaching the American side of the border.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit undermined that policy by ruling that under immigration law, a person on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border is considered to have arrived in the U.S. if they come into contact with a border official. That person may claim asylum with an immigration official even if they are on the Mexican side.
The Justice Department appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling was “erroneous” and limits the Trump administration’s ability to address surges at the southern border.
“Before this litigation, border officials had repeatedly addressed migrant surges by standing at the border and preventing aliens without valid travel documents from entering. The decision below declares that practice unlawful, on the theory that aliens stopped on the Mexican side of the border have a statutory right to apply for asylum in the United States and to be inspected by federal immigration officers,” the DOJ’s petition asking the high court to review the case said.
“The decision thus deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border,” the petition continued.
Lawyers for the class of asylum-seekers who sued over the practice claimed in their filing to the Supreme Court that because the policy is not currently in place, the lower court’s ruling “has almost no present implications, and likely no future implications either.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Noem v. Al Otro Lado came in an orders list released by the high court on Monday, and it was the only case the justices announced they would take up. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear nearly four dozen cases for the current term and is expected to add additional cases in the coming weeks.
SUPREME COURT COULD SHAKE UP MAIL BALLOT AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES AHEAD OF MIDTERM ELECTIONS
The Noem v. Al Otro Lado case marks the first major immigration and border policy case the justices have agreed to take up. The justices are expected to discuss whether to take up either of the two DOJ petitions seeking review of Trump’s birthright citizenship order at their closed-door conference on Friday.
The January executive order from Trump, which claims that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment does not include children born on U.S. soil to parents who are both in the country illegally or on a temporary basis, has been struck down by various federal courts across the country.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
