1 Trending: Media Falsely Paint Woman Charged With Murdering Her Baby As A Victim Of Pro-Life Laws

2 Trending: Democrats’ Fraud-Friendly Election Rules Destroy Public Trust

3 Trending: Polymarket’s D.C. Pop-Up Bar Brought Young People Together To Collectively Ignore Each Other

4 Trending: 5 Ways Working Moms Can Save Their Best Energy For Their Kids

Supreme Court Weighs Asylum Policy Critical To Combatting Border Surges

‘If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing … that we’re looking for where we say, “Ah, now that person we can say ‘arrives in’ the United States?”‘ asked Justice Barrett.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legality of a border policy that’s played a key role in immigration officials’ efforts to stave off migrant surges at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Noem v. Alt Otro Lado, which deals with a challenge to border officials’ now-inactive “metering” policy. As described by the Trump administration, the practice — which was initially implemented in 2016 and later formalized in 2018 — involves “port officials … stand[ing] along the border and temporarily prevent[ing] aliens without valid travel documents from crossing into the United States, generally telling them that they would need to return to the port of entry later, when there were sufficient resources to process them.”

The Trump administration appealed the case to SCOTUS after the 9th Circuit Court held that the policy violates provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allow for an individual who “arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum and undergo inspection by an immigration official. The lower court argued that “the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are........

© The Federalist