- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can turn back asylum seekers at the border, reversing lower court victories.
- The case originated in San Diego in 2016 under the Obama administration's 'metering' policy, where asylum seekers were placed on indefinite waitlists.
- Advocates warn the decision will lead to deaths and a humanitarian crisis, as it undermines U.S. and international asylum laws.
- The ruling also eliminated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
- The decision aligns with President Trump's immigration policies, with the court expected to rule on birthright citizenship later this week.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision allowing the Trump administration to block asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border has deep roots in San Diego, where the controversial 'metering' policy first emerged in late 2016. The 6-3 ruling, split along partisan lines, overturns previous legal victories for asylum advocates and reshapes U.S. asylum law.
Origins of the Case in San Diego
The legal battle began in San Diego during the Obama administration, when federal agents began turning away asylum seekers at ports of entry. Instead of allowing them to claim asylum on U.S. soil, migrants were told to add their names to lists and wait indefinitely—a practice known as 'metering.' Lawyers sued, arguing the policy violated laws established after World War II to protect refugees fleeing persecution, such as those escaping Nazi Germany.
Supreme Court's Majority Opinion
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, argued that a person does not 'arrive in' the United States until they physically enter, allowing border agents to block entry before asylum claims can be made. In a biting 35-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the decision allows the government to circumvent asylum protections, even when ports of entry have capacity to process claims. She wrote that asylum seekers may be turned away even if they face persecution or death.
Impact on Asylum Seekers and TPS Holders
The ruling directly affects thousands: the court also eliminated Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, according to the Congressional Research Service. Melissa Crow, director of litigation for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, said vulnerable migrants will likely die as a result. 'World leaders came together and vowed never again would they turn people back to persecution,' she said. 'That is essentially what Justice Alito condoned.'
Local California Context
The case's San Diego origins highlight California's frontline role in immigration enforcement. The policy was first implemented at the San Ysidro port of entry, the busiest land border crossing in the Western Hemisphere. Advocates like Al Otro Lado, a legal group based in California and Mexico, filed the original lawsuit in 2017. The decision could lead to renewed humanitarian crises at the California-Mexico border, with migrants stranded in dangerous conditions.
What's Next
The Supreme Court is set to rule on a birthright citizenship case later this week, which lawyers note is a constitutional matter distinct from the statutory asylum and TPS cases. Meanwhile, advocates expect the metering policy to be reimplemented, prompting fears of another humanitarian emergency.