Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a dissent from the bench Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to allow the Trump administration to revive an immigration policy known as "metering," which permits border officials to limit the number of asylum seekers who may present themselves at ports of entry along the southern border. The decision marks a significant shift in how noncitizens seeking protection will be processed at U.S. entry points.

The metering policy was first implemented under former President Barack Obama in 2016 during a surge of migrant arrivals at a California port of entry. It was subsequently used during President Donald Trump's first term and was rescinded by former President Joe Biden in November 2021. Thursday's ruling clears the way for the current administration to reinstate the practice.

What the Left Is Saying

Justice Sotomayor, the most senior liberal on the court, warned that the decision would leave people fleeing persecution or violence more vulnerable to dangerous conditions during her rare from-the-bench dissent. She stated that "the consequences of today's decision are predictable," and predicted that "more people will die" as a result.

"More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not," Sotomayor read aloud in her dissent. The practice of reading dissents from the bench is reserved for instances when justices strongly disagree with majority opinions.

Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation "makes no sense," drawing an analogy comparing the ruling to a train conductor claiming a train was "arriving at Penn Station" while still half a mile away. She maintained that any noncitizen arriving at America's doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of whether their foot has crossed the threshold.

The liberal justice wrote that the decision "blesses" executive branch efforts to effectively close the door on asylum seekers by permitting immigration officers to physically turn people away regardless of capacity or individual circumstances. She said the ruling allows the federal government to circumvent "mandatory procedures" designed to ensure each migrant seeking entry was properly processed.

What the Right Is Saying

Writing for the majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito explained that noncitizens who remain on the Mexico side of the border have not legally "arrived" in the United States and are therefore not entitled to apply for asylum or required to be inspected by an immigration officer under current law.

"A person arrives in a destination only when he enters it, and that conclusion does not change because someone or something blocks entry," Alito wrote. He emphasized that the legal definition of arrival is tied to physical crossing into U.S. territory.

The majority opinion noted that the metering policy had been employed by two different administrations to maintain orderly processes at ports of entry. Following Sotomayor's from-the-bench dissent, Alito offered a rare response from the bench, suggesting he would have added additional remarks if he had known she intended to read her objection aloud.

What the Numbers Show

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines in this case. The three liberal justices — Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented from the majority. The six conservative members of the court formed the majority.

According to Customs and Border Protection data, encounters at the southern border have fluctuated significantly over recent years, reaching highs of more than 250,000 monthly encounters during peak periods before declining under previous administration policies.

The metering policy, when previously in effect, resulted in wait times for asylum seekers that advocates characterized as lasting months. The Biden administration's rescission of the policy in 2021 came after a federal judge temporarily blocked its termination.

The Bottom Line

Thursday's ruling represents a significant expansion of executive authority over asylum processing at U.S. ports of entry. The decision allows the current administration to reinstate metering without judicial interference, giving border officials discretion over how many asylum claims they accept for processing.

Legal observers note that Thursday's case focused narrowly on whether noncitizens waiting in Mexico have legally "arrived" in the United States — a question the majority answered in the negative. Broader challenges to immigration enforcement priorities and asylum procedures remain pending in lower courts.

Immigration advocates are expected to continue challenging metering practices through other legal channels, while Congress may face pressure to clarify statutory language around inspection and arrival requirements for those seeking humanitarian protection at U.S. borders.