SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — The Supreme Court heard a major case filed in San Diego today that centers around when and where people can make an asylum claim in the U.S.
The hearing for the Al Otro Lado case lasted about an hour and a half, with most of the debate focusing on exactly what it means to "arrive" in the country.
Just hours before Al Otro Lado went before the Supreme Court justices to argue their case, immigrant rights advocates held a vigil and rally on the steps of the court.
The lawsuit, filed in San Diego in 2017, centers around a policy referred to as "metering," where border officials turn away asylum seekers at the port without allowing them to make an asylum claim.
It was first implemented by President Obama in 2016 and expanded by President Trump in 2018. President Biden stopped the policy in 2021. Several lower courts have ruled the policy is unlawful.
At the center of the Supreme Court’s back and forth on Tuesday was what exactly it means to "arrive in" the country. The Justice Department says it is anyone already in the U.S., while Al Otro Lado argues the definition includes a person at a port of entry.
"They're arriving. They're knocking on the door again. The statute that is specifically at issue here says arrives in," said one Supreme Court justice.
Al Otro Lado argues that the policy puts migrants in Tijuana and across the southern border in danger while waiting for asylum.
When asked if President Trump would like to bring the policy back, the DOJ attorney responded to the justices.
"This administration would like to reinstate metering if and when border conditions justify," the DOJ attorney said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the questions asked on Tuesday were difficult to answer because the policy isn't currently in effect.
A final decision on the case is expected by this summer.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
