Supreme Court to hear San Diego border “metering” dispute over asylum access at ports of entry
A long-running San Diego-area lawsuit reaches the nation’s highest court
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the legality of a border practice commonly known as “metering,” a system used at U.S. land ports of entry to limit how many people may approach and request asylum on a given day. The case stems from policies implemented at major crossings including San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, where asylum seekers were at times instructed to wait in Mexico rather than being allowed to present themselves for inspection and protection processing.
The dispute has been framed in court records as a question of whether those turnbacks were unlawful denials of access to the asylum process or a permissible way for federal officers to manage limited processing capacity during periods of high demand.
What “metering” meant in practice
Metering refers to on-the-ground restrictions that capped entry for people seeking asylum at ports of entry. Under the system challenged in this litigation, asylum seekers could be prevented from physically reaching U.S. inspection points, effectively delaying the chance to seek protection until space was available. The practice drew particular attention in the San Diego–Tijuana region, one of the busiest corridors on the U.S.-Mexico border.
The policy was used in multiple administrations and expanded across ports of entry during the first Trump administration. It ended during 2020 as pandemic-era border restrictions took hold, and it was later rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021. Even so, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to review lower-court rulings that found the practice unlawful.
The lawsuit and the rulings that set up Supreme Court review
The case was brought by a legal services organization, Al Otro Lado, along with individual asylum seekers who alleged they were blocked at ports of entry and denied timely access to the asylum system. The plaintiffs argued that federal law requires immigration authorities to inspect and process people who arrive and request asylum, rather than directing them away from the port.
A federal judge in San Diego ruled in 2021 that the metering practice violated statutory obligations and constitutional protections as applied in the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later affirmed key parts of that decision, setting up the federal government’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court is being asked to decide
The Supreme Court’s review centers on the scope of federal officials’ authority at ports of entry and how immigration statutes governing inspection and asylum processing apply when the government asserts that operational constraints limit daily intake.
While the details will be tested in briefing and oral argument, the competing positions can be summarized as follows:
Challengers contend that turning people away at ports of entry unlawfully prevents them from seeking asylum and receiving required screening.
The federal government argues metering was a necessary operational tool for handling surges and managing capacity at ports of entry.
The court’s decision could clarify how far the government may go in regulating physical access to ports of entry when processing capacity is constrained.
Why the case matters for San Diego and beyond
San Diego’s ports of entry have repeatedly been central to national debates over border management and asylum access. A Supreme Court ruling is expected to influence how future administrations structure port-of-entry processing during high-demand periods, even as broader asylum policies continue to shift through executive action and separate litigation.
The case is expected to be argued during the court’s late-winter or early-spring calendar, with a decision likely by the end of the term.