Supreme Court rules Trump can turn back asylum seekers at US border in major immigration win
- US News
- World News
- Page Six
- Sports
- Post Sports+
- Sports Betting
- Business
- Opinion
- Entertainment
- Shopping
- Lifestyle
- Health
- Real Estate
- Alexa
- Media
- Tech
- Science
- Astrology
- Video
- Photos
- Pod Force One
- NY POSTcast
Switch between CA and NY editions here.
Editiontrending now in US News
Skip to main content
Two women killed in hit-and-run crash as they walked home from...
Pastor attacked neighbor who allegedly threatened to rape and...
Huge SCOTUS ruling on asylum seekers has major ramifications for...
NY girl, 3, dies from lice infestation, severe neglect after...
Disgraced ex-NJ teacher accused of having sex with 8th-grader...
Penthouse Pet reveals past as she tries to avoid time...
Kathy Hochul attempts to lead Buffalo Bills chant and gets...
Missing Chicago couple found dead outside Mexico City, family...
Politics
breaking
Supreme Court rules Trump can turn back asylum seekers at US border in major immigration win
By Ryan King and Samuel Chamberlain Published June 25, 2026 Updated June 25, 2026, 11:22 a.m. ETSee more of our coverage in your search results.
Add The New York Post on GoogleWASHINGTON —The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can turn away migrants who show up at the US-Mexico border before they apply for asylum, in a victory for the White House’s immigration crackdown that prompted a tense exchange between two justices.
The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of a policy known as “metering,” in use during President Trump’s first term as well as Barack Obama’s administration, which capped the number of people who could apply for asylum each day.
Immigration advocates had claimed that aliens should be considered to “arrive” in the US once they reached the border and argued the policy violated federal law, stating that migrants can apply for asylum upon entry, regardless of whether they did so legally or illegally.
4
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito disagreed, writing in the majority opinion: “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place.
“The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading.”
Explore More
Supreme Court rules Trump can remove deportation protection from Haitians, Syrians
Supreme Court overturns ‘vampire’ Hawaii gun law requiring permission to carry in stores, hotels
Lone holdout juror in first Etan Patz trial rips top-court ruling upholding later conviction: ‘Not the right closure for NY’
The administration had argued that the policy was necessary to deal with a massive influx of migrants at the southern border, adding that people who were initially turned away could always come back and attempt to apply later.
“This is a tremendous win for the Trump Administration, the rule of law, and common sense,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “President Trump remains committed to lawfully restoring integrity to our immigration system, which includes tackling the egregious abuses to our asylum system that the prior administration encouraged. We will always put the American people first.”
4
To qualify for asylum, migrants must show a fear of persecution in their homeland for specific reasons, like race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Once granted asylum, migrants are protected from deportation and can legally work, bring in immediate family, apply for legal residency, and seek citizenship.
All three Democrat-appointed justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench, adding extemporaneously that her colleagues’ ruling “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
4
“The consequences of today’s decision are predictable,” Sotomayor wrote. “More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not. More people will be forced to walk along the U.S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them. More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves … Because this is neither what Congress said nor what its words permit, I respectfully dissent.”
Start your day with all you need to know
Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.
Thanks for signing up!
A visibly annoyed Alito rejoined that there “was much he would have added” to the reading of his opinion had he known Sotomayor would read her dissent and pointed out the policy had been used during two presidential administrations of opposing parties.
“I won’t add anything more to that,” concluded Alito, who finished his opinion by reminding: “The wisdom of the policy of metering alien arrivals at the southern border is not before us. We decide only that an alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States.’ The [law] neither entitles such an alien to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.”
4
Metering was first used under Obama in 2016, when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main crossing to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico. It was expanded to all border crossings from Mexico during Trump’s first term.
The policy was terminated in 2020, when the government introduced greater restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, and former President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.
The same year, a California federal judge found that metering violated both asylum seekers’ rights and the law requiring screening. A divided Ninth Circuit appeals panel affirmed the ruling, but nearly half of the judges on the full court voted to rehear it, a strong signal that likely caught the attention of the Supreme Court.
Additional reporting by Ally Goelz
Filed under- asylum
- donald trump
- illegal immigrants
- immigration
- mexico
- supreme court
- us border
- us border crisis
- 6/25/26
Trending Now on NYPost.com
-
This story has been shared 67,293 times.
67,293
LaMelo Ball traded away by Hornets in stunning NBA bombshell
-
This story has been shared 48,922 times.
48,922
Two women killed in hit-and-run crash as they walked home from World Cup watch party
-
This story has been shared 35,981 times.
35,981
Pastor attacked neighbor who allegedly threatened to rape and kill wife
Now on Page Six
-
Finally, a good look at Zoë Kravitz’s massive engagement ring worth half a million dollars
-
‘Cars’ singer Gary Numan confesses how he wooed fan-turned-wife may ‘be illegal now’
-
Disheveled Mickey Rourke shows off missing teeth after being evicted from LA home
Video
Now on Decider
See All
More Stories
Page Six
Lionel Richie, 77, falls ill onstage, abruptly ends opening night concert in Minnesota
Decider
Stream It Or Skip It: ‘Oasis’ On Netflix, Where A Young Woman’s Disappearance Puts A Luxury Resort On Lockdown
NYPost
LaMelo Ball traded away by Hornets in stunning NBA bombshell
© 2026 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Subscription Terms Privacy Notice SitemapYour California Privacy Rights
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
