The Supreme Court considered reviving the metering policy that limits asylum applications at U.S.-Mexico ports of entry, a move that would affect who can seek asylum at border crossings.

The dispute centers on how to interpret “arrive in” in immigration law: the DOJ says it means people already in the U.S. (excluding those turned away at the border), while advocates argue it includes anyone who comes to a port of entry.

Proponents say metering helps manage border processing and has been used across administrations; opponents warn of humanitarian harms from its past use.

Reported by Lindsay Whitehurst of the Associated Press, filing from Washington, D.C.

The piece is part of AP’s Democracy Dies in Darkness coverage and includes a photo caption about an Ecuadorian asylum seeker.

The proceedings reference the March 24, 2026 Supreme Court session, with historical reporting on related policies and legal challenges.

While the excerpt lacks the policy’s name and specific challenges, the central issue is whether the policy can be revived and remain legally viable.

Voice of the debate includes DOJ officials framing the issue around ordinary language and statutory scope, and immigrant-rights advocates warning the ruling could undermine protections for people fleeing persecution.

The decision could influence interpretations of birthright citizenship and shape asylum processing if the Court ruling affects border-based protections.

The asylum framework allows protection for those fearing persecution, with granted asylum yielding work authorization, family sponsorship, residency, and potential citizenship.

Background: asylum eligibility requires demonstrating fear of persecution; once granted, individuals receive protections that can lead to legal status and citizenship.

Pivotal element: applicants must show a well-founded fear of persecution to qualify for asylum, with potential long-term status if granted.