The Supreme Court has cleared the path for the Trump administration to resurrect an asylum screening policy that allows authorities to limit how many migrants can apply for refuge each day at the southern border. The justices overturned a lower court order that had blocked the practice, which was deployed under both the Obama and Trump administrations but formally ended under President Biden in 2021.
The policy, known as metering, restricts the number of asylum applicants processed daily at ports of entry. When it was active, immigration advocates described conditions that amounted to a humanitarian crisis, with thousands of rejected migrants forced into unsafe makeshift shelters while waiting for their turn to apply. The Trump administration countered that the tool was essential to manage surging arrivals at the border.
The Justice Department's legal position holds that migrants who haven't yet crossed into the country technically haven't "arrived" in the US, and therefore border agents are not obligated to let them apply for asylum protection. Attorneys representing asylum seekers argue that federal law has long required anyone appearing at a port of entry to be screened for fear of persecution in their home countries.
The policy originated during the Obama era when large numbers of Haitian nationals crowded the main border crossing near San Diego. Trump expanded it to all Mexican border crossings during his first term. A federal judge in California ruled it unconstitutional in 2021, and a divided appeals court panel initially upheld that decision, though enough judges voted to reconsider the ruling that the Supreme Court took notice.
The justices also issued a 6-3 decision striking down a Hawaii law that required gun owners to obtain permission from property owners before carrying firearms into stores, hotels, and shopping malls. The ruling allows Americans to carry guns onto privately owned property unless owners explicitly prohibit it, marking another Second Amendment victory for the Trump administration, which backed the challenge.
Capitol Hill erupted into fresh combat over voting restrictions as House Speaker Mike Johnson struggled to unite his fractured caucus. The speaker proposed bundling a stripped-down version of the Save America Act into a budget reconciliation package to bypass Senate Democrats' expected filibuster. The bill would impose voter ID requirements and restrict mail-in balloting.
Hard-right Republicans rejected the compromise outright. Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, leading the rebellion, declared on social media that she would not accept any version short of the full bill. Chip Roy of Texas, policy chair of the House Freedom Caucus, acknowledged grant incentives would be insufficient, saying states could simply ignore them. He urged attaching the full Save America Act to other moving legislation, including a housing bill.
Trump himself rejected the middle ground yesterday, telling reporters there was "no compromise" on voter ID, proof of citizenship, and mail-in ballot restrictions. Johnson was scheduled to meet with the president at 2 p.m. to attempt breaking the deadlock.
A federal judge in Boston also dealt Trump a setback by blocking implementation of his executive order directing the government to compile a national voter file and restrict mail-in ballots before the November midterm elections. US District Judge Indira Talwani sided with Democratic-led states arguing the president lacks authority to meddle with state election administration. Trump has long pushed false claims of widespread voter fraud despite repeated studies and investigations proving otherwise. His order directed the Homeland Security Department to create a list of eligible voters and required the Postal Service to only deliver ballots to names on state-approved lists.
The Supreme Court has additional rulings pending, including decisions on birthright citizenship, Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians, and the forced removal of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, with the term's end approaching.
Author James Rodriguez: "The Court's asylum decision hands Trump a major enforcement tool, but Johnson's failure to unite his own party on voting legislation shows the president's leverage on Capitol Hill has limits."
Comments