Supreme Court Likely To Revive Obama-Era Rule on Asylum-Seekers
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to reevaluate a longstanding immigration policy that denied asylum seekers entry at ports along the southern U.S. border. President Donald Trump requested the justices to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the policy unlawful.
The Biden administration terminated the practice referred to by the government as “metering.” The Trump administration seeks to maintain flexibility while intensifying its immigration enforcement efforts.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stated, “The Constitution assigns the authority to regulate the border to the political branches, rather than the judiciary. The decision below improperly undermines Congress’s authority to establish asylum policy, referencing its ties to active policies. It also ‘significantly encroaches upon the executive branch’s authority to regulate the nation’s borders.'”
The nonprofit immigrant rights organization, Al Otro Lado, in conjunction with 13 asylum-seekers who initiated the lawsuit central to the dispute in 2017, expressed their endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and are ready to uphold it before the Supreme Court.
“The government’s turnback policy constituted an unlawful strategy to evade these obligations by physically obstructing asylum-seekers at ports of entry and hindering their ability to cross the border for protection,” stated attorneys for Al Otro Lado and the asylum-seekers. “At-risk families, children, and adults escaping persecution were left in hazardous circumstances, where they encountered violent attacks, abduction, and mortality.”
Sauer stated, “According to the rationale of the decision below, [Customs and Border Patrol] was prohibited from obstructing the entry of an individual who arrived at the border without a prior appointment.” An alien could assert that he has arrived ‘in the United States,’ thereby necessitating government inspection and processing of his asylum application, which would enable him to circumvent the queue.
The asylum-seekers contested the government’s petition, asserting that the appellate court’s decision pertained solely to a specific group of migrants.
Kelsi Brown Corkran, an attorney with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, stated, “While the current administration’s border policies are subject to impending legal challenges, none of the plaintiffs’ assertions in those cases hinge on the issue raised by the petition here.” The court’s determination of the issue at hand would consequently constitute little more than an advisory opinion.
The Justice Department refrained from commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision to consider its appeal. The White House directed inquiries regarding the reinstatement of the metering policy to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not respond to questions concerning the potential revival of the policy by the Trump administration.
“Our attorneys have unequivocally articulated that the Trump administration has consistently upheld the explicit interpretation of federal law and fundamental logic in this matter from the outset,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated in an email that contained a link to the government’s petition. “We anticipate presenting our case to the Supreme Court.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that individuals in the United States, irrespective of their location, have the right to apply for asylum if they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.
In 2016, in response to an influx of Haitian asylum-seekers at San Ysidro port of entry in Southern California, the Obama administration mandated that border agents refuse entry to newly arriving migrants.
Two years later, the Department of Homeland Security formally instituted the policy, supplying all southern border ports with “metering guidance.”
Under the 2018 policy, border agents were assigned the responsibility of identifying prospective asylum-seekers and actively obstructing their entry into U.S. territory.
In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a new barrier for migrants, declaring that individuals who traversed one or more countries prior to reaching the U.S. would be disqualified from asylum unless they had first pursued protection in at least one of those transit countries.
A lower court has certified a class for asylum seekers who arrived prior to Trump’s transit rule, issuing an injunction that reinstates claims previously denied under the 2019 policy.
The class facilitated the advancement of the case subsequent to the Biden administration’s abrogation of the metering policy in 2021. The transit rule was ultimately rescinded in 2023.
In 2022, the lower court issued a definitive ruling, imposing a permanent injunction that barred the government from enforcing the asylum prohibitions against that particular group. The court confirmed that individuals in this category possessed the right to seek asylum in accordance with prior policy directives.
The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, arguing that alternative solutions, like the Biden-era CBP One app designed for asylum appointment scheduling for migrants, could be at risk.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
