.jpg)
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it has agreed
to review one of the most controversial immigration measures of Donald Trump’s
first term: the policy that prevented asylum seekers from initiating the
process even before setting foot on U.S. soil. This judicial review is shaping
up to be the first major immigration debate the high court will face this term.
Under federal law, authorities are obligated to receive and
process asylum applications submitted by individuals arriving at official ports
of entry. However, in 2018, the Trump administration introduced a practice
known as “metering,” whereby border agents drastically limited access for those
seeking to begin their application for humanitarian protection.
Under this scheme, U.S. officials instructed migrants to
return to Mexico and wait there, often indefinitely, before being allowed to
approach a border crossing again. This practice led to long waiting lists in
Mexican cities and was denounced by human rights organizations as a covert
mechanism to restrict access to asylum.
The Supreme Court's decision opens the door to a thorough
analysis of the legality of this strategy and its impact on immigration policy.
The resulting ruling could influence not only how ports of entry are managed
but also the extent of executive authority to modify international protection
processes.