Supreme Court debates asylum policies affecting Cuban migrants

The Supreme Court of the United States spent more than an hour Tuesday debating what exactly it means to “arrive in” the United States, a discussion that could determine the fate of thousands of Cuban and other asylum seekers at the southern border.

The nine justices appeared divided over a controversial immigration policy that President Donald Trump seeks to revive: the “metering” policy that allows federal agents to turn back asylum seekers before they ever set foot on U.S. soil.

The Interpretive Debate

During oral arguments, conservative justices seemed at least open to siding with the Trump administration, perhaps in a limited way. The uncertainty underscores the unusual nature of a policy that began under Barack Obama, was championed by Trump during his first term, rescinded under Joe Biden, and now Trump seeks to reinstate.

“Does an immigrant ‘arrive in’ the US when standing in line at a port of entry,” several justices asked. “What if they’re the last person in line waiting to be processed – or the second person in line? What if they’re wading across the Rio Grande? Or standing atop a border wall?”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned directly: “‘Arrives in’ sounds more like you’ve reached your destination. How do you know, under your theory, when the person is close enough that we could say they have ‘arrived in’ or ‘arrived in’ the destination?”

The Policy Under Scrutiny

The metering policy enabled federal agents stationed at the border to turn back asylum seekers before they ever stepped foot on US soil. Under immigration law, the government must process a migrant who presents at a port of entry and is fleeing political, racial or religious persecution.

A migrant covered under that requirement is defined as someone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States.”

Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri told the justices that the administration viewed the measure as an “important tool in the government’s toolbox for dealing with border surges when they occur.”

Impact on the Cuban Community

This policy has particular implications for Cubans seeking asylum, especially at a time when USCIS has suspended asylum approvals for 75 countries, including Cuba.

With over 300,000 Cubans in legal limbo and a record 427 deportations to Cuba in 2026 alone, the Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether thousands of Cubans will even have the opportunity to present their asylum cases.

The MS St. Louis Comparison

Immigrant rights advocates have compared this policy to the MS St. Louis episode during World War II, when the United States turned away a ship carrying nearly 1,000 Jewish refugees fleeing Europe in 1939.

HIAS (formerly known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) argued in court papers that the metering policy “creates a legal no man’s land” that puts the safety of asylum seekers at risk.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor picked up on this point during arguments: “We didn’t let them dock and interview them at all? We didn’t consider whether they were being persecuted. And the majority of those people were shipped back or had to go back from where they came and were killed. That’s what we’re doing here, isn’t it?”

Lower Courts Rule Against Policy

When Obama rolled out the first iteration of the policy in 2016, border officials were reeling from a surge of Haitian asylum seekers that had overwhelmed their ability to manage the situation.

A federal judge in California ruled the policy was unlawful and certified a class of individuals to be shielded from it. In 2024, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in a divided decision.

“The phrase ‘physically present in the United States’ encompasses noncitizens within our borders, and the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are standing on,” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland in the majority decision.

Humanitarian Crisis at the Border

The policy’s challengers told the high court that turning these people back “quickly created a humanitarian crisis in Mexico.”

“As CBP continued to refuse to inspect or process asylum seekers, many of those turned away found themselves living in makeshift camps on the Mexican side of the border,” they told the justices in court papers. “The growing bottleneck of asylum seekers turned back by (Customs and Border Protection) waited near the ports for weeks and then months without reliable food sources, shelter, or safety.”

Some, they said, “attempted instead to enter the United States between ports and died while crossing the Rio Grande or the Sonoran Desert.”

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the border “metering” policy? It’s a policy that allows federal agents to turn back asylum seekers at the border before they step on U.S. soil, arguing they haven’t yet “arrived” in the United States.

How does this specifically affect Cubans? With record deportations and the suspension of humanitarian parole, this policy could eliminate the last opportunity for Cubans to present valid asylum claims.

What is the MS St. Louis precedent? In 1939, the U.S. turned away a ship carrying Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust. Most were forced to return and died, a historical precedent that advocates cite.

What did lower courts say? Both a federal judge in California and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have declared the policy illegal, saying it violates U.S. legal obligations.

The Future of Asylum Seekers

The Supreme Court’s decision could have massive implications for the future of the U.S. asylum system. With the Trump administration seeking additional tools to restrict migration, this ruling could determine whether thousands of Cuban families will even have the opportunity to seek legal protection.

As attorney Kelsi Corkran, representing the migrants, noted: “Congress carefully crafted our asylum system to ensure that the United States lives up to its ideals and its treaty obligations towards non-citizens fleeing persecution.”

The court must decide whether those ideals extend to the border line itself, or whether they can be limited by technical interpretations of what exactly it means to “arrive in the United States.”

The final decision could come in the coming months, just as hundreds of Cuban families face an uncertain future in detention centers and makeshift refugee camps at the border.

What’s Next

The case is one of several before the high court this session testing controversial immigration policies that Trump wants justices to approve. Next month, the nine will review an order he issued last year that sought to end birthright citizenship, as well as his efforts to end temporary deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians.

The Trump administration’s decision to continue backing the metering policy in court underscores its desire to keep the policy as a backup avenue to stem the flow of migrants at the border as other restrictive measures face challenges in court.

---

Related: Supreme Court reviews other controversial Trump policies, including efforts to end birthright citizenship and temporary protections for Haitians and Syrians.