Supreme Court to consider case that could limit asylum rights for migrants

"The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review the question of when a migrant actually arrives in the United States, in a case that could determine whether migrants intercepted before crossing U.S. borders can apply for asylum. The Trump administration in July petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit,"

""The decision thus deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border," Solicitor General D. John Sauer and other Trump administration lawyers wrote in their petition. The case arises from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2017 by 13 asylum seekers and the immigrants rights organization Al Otro Lado."

"In 2022, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California held that the class of migrants who are turned away in the process of arriving in the United States are unlawfully denied their right to seek asylum. A divided panel on the 9th Circuit affirmed. The case centers on a former practice called "metering," which allowed border officials to stop migrants without documentation before they enter the United States."

The Supreme Court agreed to review when a migrant is considered to have arrived in the United States, a determination that could affect asylum eligibility for those intercepted before crossing. The Trump administration petitioned to reverse a 9th Circuit decision that allowed migrants stopped on the Mexico side to apply for asylum and be screened for admission. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the lower-court ruling deprived the Executive Branch of a tool to address border surges and prevent overcrowding at ports of entry. The case began with a 2017 class-action by 13 asylum seekers and Al Otro Lado. A 2022 district court found that turning migrants away unlawfully denied asylum access, and the 9th Circuit affirmed. The dispute centers on the former "metering" practice, implemented in 2016, continued by the first Trump administration, and rescinded in 2021; respondents contend the case is not ripe because the policy is not in use.

Read at The Washington Post