Speaking alongside Syrian transitional President Ahmed Al-Sharaa in Berlin, Merz said both governments were seeking to create conditions that would allow more Syrians to return voluntarily to their homeland.

Germany hosts the largest Syrian diaspora in the European Union, with more than one million Syrians, many of whom arrived during the 2015–2016 migrant influx.“We are working jointly toward more Syrians being able to return to their homeland,” Merz said at a joint press conference.

Sharaa said Damascus and Berlin were exploring a “circular” migration framework that would allow Syrians to participate in rebuilding their country while retaining the option to remain in Germany.

Such a model would enable returnees to contribute to reconstruction efforts without permanently relinquishing the economic and social stability they have established abroad, he said.

Merz said Germany intended to support Syria’s reconstruction after years of civil war, adding that a German delegation would travel to Syria in the coming days to advance cooperation.

However, he stressed that deeper bilateral engagement would depend on progress toward establishing rule-of-law institutions.

“Many joint projects in the future will depend on our finding a state governed by the rule of law,” Merz said, adding that he was confident such conditions could be achieved following discussions with Sharaa.

During oral arguments, several conservative justices signaled openness to the government’s request to revive the practice known as “metering,” which caps the number of migrants allowed to apply for asylum at official border crossings.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued the measure is a necessary tool to manage surges in migration and has been used under multiple administrations.

Critics, including immigration advocates, said the policy previously triggered a humanitarian crisis by forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, often in makeshift camps, before being allowed to present claims.

The practice is not currently in force, and Trump has separately ordered a broader suspension of asylum processing during his second term.

The case centers on interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees that individuals who “arrive” in the United States may apply for asylum if they fear persecution. Government lawyers contend the provision applies only once migrants are physically inside U.S. territory, not when they are turned away at the border.

Attorneys representing migrants argued the law has long been understood to include individuals presenting themselves at ports of entry, and that restricting access violates statutory protections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether current interpretations create incentives for illegal entry over lawful arrival, while Chief Justice John Roberts pressed both sides on where legal eligibility for asylum begins.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised procedural concerns, noting the absence of an active policy and questioning whether the court was evaluating hypothetical scenarios rather than a live dispute.

Metering was first introduced during the administration of Barack Obama and later expanded nationwide under Trump. The policy ended in 2020 amid pandemic-related restrictions and was formally rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.

That same year, a federal district court ruled the practice unlawful, finding it violated both constitutional protections and federal asylum law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, though internal divisions among judges highlighted ongoing legal uncertainty.

The case is one of several major immigration disputes before the court this term, including challenges related to birthright citizenship and the administration’s efforts to roll back protections for migrants fleeing conflict and instability.U.S. law allows individuals granted asylum to remain in the country, work legally, reunite with immediate family members, and eventually seek permanent residency and citizenship.

The filings, tied to long-running litigation over migrant child detention standards, detail conditions at the Dilley detention facility, where children and families faced virus outbreaks and extended lockdowns in December and January.

Lawyers and monitors said conditions remained concerning even as the number of detained children declined in recent weeks.Under standards stemming from the Flores settlement, children are generally not to be held in custody for more than 20 days.

However, government data cited in the filings showed that about 595 children were detained beyond that limit during December and January.Of those, approximately 265 were held for more than 50 days and 55 for over 100 days, according to the documents.

This marked an increase from a prior disclosure indicating around 400 children exceeded the limit between August and September.Lawyers argued that prolonged detention, combined with reported deficiencies in care, risked worsening physical and psychological harm among minors.

Attorneys and advocacy groups cited cases of inadequate medical treatment, poor food quality and limited access to legal counsel. One filing described a 13-year-old girl who attempted self-harm after being denied prescribed antidepressants and access to her mother.

Government records referenced in the filings stated there had been no placements on suicide watch.Advocates who visited the facility in March said that while the number of detained children had dropped to about 85, systemic issues persisted. Reports also cited the presence of worms in food and insufficient healthcare access.

The case of a young child detained earlier this year drew protests, including demonstrations by detainees within the facility.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that detention standards provide for basic necessities, including adequate food and water, and described detention as a consequence of migration choices.

It added that authorities were working to expedite deportations.The administration of Donald Trump is seeking to end the Flores settlement, arguing it constrains enforcement and imposes costs.

The case is being overseen by Dolly Gee of the Central District of California, with a hearing scheduled later this month to review compliance and conditions.