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 The policy ended in 2020 amid pandemic-related restrictions and was formally rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.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 U.S. Department of Education said its Office for Civil Rights opened the probes to examine claims that Harvard continues to discriminate against students based on race, color and national origin, in potential breach of federal statutes.

According to the department, one investigation will assess whether Harvard has continued to apply race-based preferences in admissions following the U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action ruling 2023 that effectively ended affirmative action in higher education.

A second probe will examine allegations of antisemitism on campus, reflecting broader concerns about discrimination and student safety at U.S. universities.

Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The university has previously said it opposes all forms of discrimination and is working to address bias on campus.

Internal task force reports released by Harvard last year found that both Jewish and Muslim students had experienced incidents of bigotry and abuse, underscoring tensions within campus communities.

The investigations mark the latest move by the Trump administration targeting leading universities, as federal authorities increase scrutiny of admissions practices and campus environments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The court’s brief and unsigned order did not provide reasoning, as is typical in emergency rulings. However, two liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor — issued a sharp dissent. Justice Jackson accused the majority of “botching” the legal balancing test, warning of “devastating consequences” for over 500,000 migrants who now face the threat of deportation.

The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program had offered a two-year safe haven to people fleeing political turmoil, economic collapse, or natural disasters in their home countries. Critics of the administration’s policy say the sudden revocation could lead to the largest mass removal of legal residents in modern U.S. history.

Economic Impact and Humanitarian Concerns

Advocates and labor unions underscored the critical role these migrants play in the American economy, particularly in essential industries such as healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. At one auto parts factory, nearly one in five workers is reportedly under the TPS program.

“These are people who stepped up to support our economy during national shortages,” said one union representative. “Now the government is pulling the rug from under them.”

City governments and counties that have welcomed TPS holders joined legal challenges, citing potential “severe economic and societal harms” if the deportations proceed.

A Battle Between Executive Power and Judicial Oversight

The Trump administration maintains that the migrants’ continued presence is “against national interests,” and argues that courts have no authority to interfere. The Department of Homeland Security insists that the program, originally expanded by the Biden administration as a deterrent to illegal crossings, has instead backfired — encouraging more arrivals and straining immigration enforcement efforts.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, speaking earlier this year at a border security summit in Phoenix, stated that the administration is determined to “restore lawful order and national sovereignty.”

However, federal courts have shown resistance. A district judge in Massachusetts, Indira Talwani, ruled that early termination of TPS protections must be assessed individually, rather than through a mass cancellation. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, temporarily halting the administration’s plan.

The Biden-era policy, now under attack, had sought to stabilize migration patterns by offering legal pathways to those escaping crises — a contrast to Trump’s strategy of swift deportation and tightened border enforcement.

Looking Ahead

Immigration rights groups are expected to continue legal challenges, with the case likely to return to the courts in full. In the meantime, over half a million people now face deep uncertainty about their futures in the U.S.

For families, employers, and communities across the country, the court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the nation’s immigration debate — one that intertwines humanitarian responsibilities with questions of law, sovereignty, and national identity.