"Metering" is both illegal and inhumane

TLDR

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "metering" policy, which limited the daily intake of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, is illegal. This policy, initiated in 2016 and intensified under the Trump administration, restricted asylum applications by only allowing a set number of individuals to apply daily, resulting in many being turned away. The court found that metering violates federal immigration law, which mandates that U.S. border officials inspect all asylum seekers presenting at official ports of entry. The Biden administration officially ended metering in 2021, though some restrictions remained due to COVID-19 measures. The decision reinforces the U.S. commitment to lawful asylum processes. It significantly shifts how future border policies might respect asylum seekers' legal rights.



In a landmark decision, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the "metering" policy—a border management strategy that capped the daily number of asylum applications accepted at U.S.-Mexico border ports—is illegal. The metering policy, introduced in 2016 and intensified during the Trump administration, was intended to control the flow of asylum seekers by limiting access to processing at designated entry points. Under this policy, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents were authorized to turn away additional asylum seekers once the daily limit was reached, forcing them to wait indefinitely or seek entry through unauthorized channels. This approach was criticized widely as a barrier to lawful asylum and a tactic that deprived many migrants of their right to a fair hearing.


The recent court ruling underscored that metering violates federal immigration law. It explicitly requires U.S. officials to allow asylum seekers to present their claims at any official border crossing. The court's decision responds to legal challenges mounted by advocates who argued that the policy denied due process and contravened the legal protections that should be available to all asylum seekers. By limiting access to legal entry, metering not only failed to meet the demands of federal law but also raised human rights concerns for those forced to live in perilous conditions while awaiting processing.


Metering's implementation had a hefty toll on vulnerable populations, such as families, children, and individuals fleeing extreme violence and persecution. The policy not only contributed to overcrowded and unsafe conditions on the Mexican side of the border but also increased the risk of exploitation and violence for those turned away. The Ninth Circuit Court's ruling is thus seen as a critical reaffirmation of the right to asylum and the obligation of border officials to process individuals by U.S. immigration law.

With the Biden administration's termination of metering in 2021, this court decision solidifies the policy change. It clearly conveys the U.S. commitment to lawful and humane border practices. However, while metering has officially ended, the ruling reflects broader ongoing debates about border management, security, and human rights. In particular, it raises questions about the balance between controlling migration flows and upholding asylum seekers' legal and moral responsibilities.


This ruling may shape how future administrations approach asylum processing, emphasizing transparency and adherence to legal standards at border checkpoints. For asylum seekers and their advocates, it offers renewed hope that future border management policies will respect the rights of individuals seeking refuge and protection.

Concluding Reflections

The Ninth Circuit Court's decision against metering represents a critical step toward protecting asylum seekers' legal rights at U.S. borders. While border control policies aim to manage migration pressures, this ruling underscores the essential requirement to uphold due process for asylum seekers. Policies that may appear efficient in theory, like metering, can inadvertently create complex humanitarian issues and even exacerbate border tensions. This court ruling reminds us that practical enforcement measures should not overshadow the commitment to fairness, compassion, and adherence to legal standards.

Thanks for reading. Please follow my blog and write your feedback.