The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a southern border policy from the first Trump administration that allowed officials to turn away migrants at ports of entry before they could file claims for asylum. According to the coverage of the decision, it was one of two major immigration rulings the justices handed down on the same opinion day, both expanding the federal government's hand in deciding who can seek to remain in the country.
The policy at the center of the case has a specific name and purpose. According to the report, it is known as metering or turn back, and it was described as an effort to shut the door at ports of entry across the southern border so as to prevent migrants and immigrants from even stepping foot on U.S. soil, where they would be able to file a claim for asylum.
The ruling rests on a distinction about when a person has legally arrived. According to the coverage, federal law requires that anyone who arrives in the United States must be given the chance to apply for asylum, but the decision reflects the view that at the doorstep of these ports of entry a person has not yet arrived, so the government can close the door and prevent the claim from being lodged there.
The outcome split the court along familiar lines. According to the report, it was a 6-3 decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting, and the dissent invoked history, pointing to asylum seekers, including Jewish immigrants turned away during the Second World War, many of whom then died in the Holocaust, as a warning about the consequences of closing that door.
The practical effect of the decision is not immediate. According to the coverage, the policy is not technically in effect right now because other immigration measures are currently in play, but the ruling clears the way for the administration to keep the approach in its toolkit and to reach for it again should there be future surges of arrivals at the southern border.
The justices framed the broader question as one ultimately left to lawmakers. According to the report, the liberals argued that the purpose of the law was not as strictly textual as the conservative majority concluded, but the decision underlined that if Congress wants to change whether people arriving at the southern border can apply for asylum, it has the power to do so.