The Supreme Court agreed Monday to examine a controversial border policy that previously limited asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border, a practice known as “metering” that was employed during both the Obama and Trump administrations.

Under the metering policy, U.S. border officials restricted the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter the country at border crossings by preventing migrants from setting foot on American soil until space became available to process their claims. The practice effectively created waiting lists in Mexican border towns, with some migrants waiting months for an opportunity to present their cases.

The high court’s decision to hear the Trump administration’s appeal comes despite the policy no longer being in active use. President Trump suspended the asylum system entirely on the first day of his second term, and advocacy groups argue that lower court rulings against metering have no practical effect under current circumstances.

The justices will hear arguments on the case in late winter or early spring, adding another significant immigration matter to the Supreme Court’s docket amid ongoing national debate about border policies.

Metering first appeared during President Barack Obama’s administration, when large numbers of Haitian migrants arrived at the San Diego-Tijuana crossing. The Trump administration later expanded it to all border crossings along the U.S.-Mexico boundary, making it a cornerstone of its restrictive immigration approach.

The practice ended in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic led to even more severe restrictions on asylum seekers. President Joe Biden formally rescinded metering in 2021 during his administration.

Despite the policy no longer being in use, the Justice Department has pushed for Supreme Court review, arguing that lower court rulings eliminated “a tool that administrations of both parties have deemed critical for controlling the processing of inadmissible aliens during border surges.” This suggests the government wants to preserve the option to reinstate metering during future migration crises.

In 2021, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that metering violated migrants’ constitutional rights and contravened federal law requiring officials to screen anyone seeking asylum who presents themselves at the border. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Bashant’s ruling in a divided 2-1 decision.

Notably, twelve of the 29 judges on the San Francisco-based appeals court voted to rehear the case, indicating significant judicial interest that likely influenced the Supreme Court’s decision to intervene.

The case highlights the complex legal framework surrounding asylum in the United States. Under U.S. law, individuals seeking refuge can apply for asylum once they reach American soil, regardless of how they entered the country. To qualify, applicants must demonstrate a credible fear of persecution in their home country based on specific criteria, including race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Asylum provides significant benefits, including protection from deportation, legal work authorization, the ability to bring immediate family members to the U.S., and pathways to permanent residency and eventual citizenship. These benefits make asylum an important humanitarian protection and a coveted legal status for those fleeing dangerous situations abroad.

The Court’s decision to review the metering policy comes amid ongoing tensions over immigration policy, with border management remaining one of the most contentious and politically charged issues in American politics. The outcome could significantly impact how future administrations manage asylum processing during periods of high migration.