Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court will review the practice known as "metering," which limits the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the United States at the southern border. This action follows a lower court ruling that found "metering" unlawful. The Trump administration supports the practice as a means to manage asylum applications.
Key Facts
- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a case challenging the "metering" of asylum seekers.
- The case is called Al Otro Lado v Noem and was previously ruled on by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that "metering" violated U.S. law by hindering asylum applications.
- "Metering" means limiting the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the U.S. due to capacity claims at entry ports.
- Asylum seekers affected by "metering" often had to wait on the Mexican side of the border.
- The Trump administration argues that "metering" helps prevent exploitation of the asylum system.
- Advocates say "metering" leaves vulnerable asylum seekers in unsafe conditions in Mexico.
