Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration to revive restrictive policy for asylum seekers

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the United States-Mexico border.

The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Advocates said the tactic created a humanitarian crisis as thousands of people settled in unsafe makeshift shelters along ports of entry to await their turn for days or months. 

The Trump administration said it was necessary to deal with an increase in asylum seekers at the border.

The policy is not in place now, and crowds are much thinner as authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers. 

The Department of Homeland Security did not say if it plans to revive it, but applauded the ruling. 

“This decision opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border,” said James Percival, the agency’s general counsel.

The administration argued that metering is a critical tool used by presidents of both parties and should remain available. 

Federal attorneys say people turned away at the border could come back later, though lines were thousands of people long when the policy was in place before.

The case is one of several immigration suits the court is considering this term, including Trump’s push to restrict birthright citizenship. The high court also allowed his administration to end deportation for migrants fleeing instability and armed conflict on Thursday.

Under federal law, migrants who arrive in the US must be able to apply for asylum and be screened for fear of persecution in their home countries.

The Justice Department argued that people stopped by authorities haven’t arrived in the country, so immigration agents don’t have to let them apply.

The court’s conservative majority agreed. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

But attorneys for people seeking asylum say the law has long meant anyone arriving at a port of entry should be screened, and blocking arrivals disregards the nation’s ideals.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, saying that the majority’s opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”

The decision could also give people a “perverse incentive” to enter the country illegally if they can’t count on being able to legally apply for asylum at a port of entry, she said, a concern that Alito’s opinion said was overblown.

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.