The Supreme Court has agreed to review a controversial border policy known as "metering," which allows federal officials to turn away asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border when they deem too many migrants are trying to apply at once. The case, set to be heard next year, could have significant implications for how the United States manages surges of people seeking asylum and how federal law is interpreted at the border, reports USA Today.
The case doesn't fall into the usual political outlines. The Obama administration began using the policy in 2016, the first Trump administration formalized it, and the Biden administration then rescinded it, per Reuters. President Trump's team is now pushing to reinstate the policy, but an immigrants rights group has challenged its legality. Current law stipulates that a migrant who "arrives in the United States" must be allowed to apply for asylum. The issue is whether those who get turned away before they cross the border are due the same standing.
"In ordinary English, a person 'arrives in' a country only when he comes within its borders," the government argued in court filings. "Allied forces did not 'arrive in' Normandy while they were still crossing the English Channel," wrote Justice Department lawyers, referring to the D-Day landings of World War II. "And a running back does not 'arrive in' the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line." When metering was in place, the Department of Homeland Security turned back migrants at the border—while they were still technically in Mexico—and refused to consider their asylum requests, per the Hill. The case was brought by 13 asylum seekers and the immigrant rights group Al Otro Lado.
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
