• The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that migrants are not entitled to asylum unless they physically enter the US.
• This ruling supports the Trump administration's intention to revive the "metering" policy regarding asylum seekers.
• The decision has sparked significant dissent among liberal justices, arguing it undermines asylum protections.
• Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that legality hinges on a strict definition of "arrival" at US soil.
• The ruling could lead to increased dangers for asylum seekers attempting illegal border crossings.

The US Supreme Court has endorsed President Donald Trump's administration in a pivotal 6-3 ruling, asserting that asylum seekers can be turned away if they have not yet physically entered the United States. The decision stems from a legal interpretation of the phrase "arrives in the United States," which the Court decreed excludes those still standing in Mexico, as articulated by Justice Samuel Alito. He stated, "An alien 'arrives in the United States' only when he crosses the border," reinforcing the Trump administration's view that those outside US territory cannot claim asylum, according to Reuters and BBC.

This ruling effectively revives a contentious policy known as "metering," which had previously allowed federal immigration agents to prevent asylum seekers from entering the US when border conditions were deemed overburdened. Such practices date back to an executive strategy initiated during Obama's administration but were expanded under Trump. The ruling counters a lower court's decision, which found metering practices violated federal law that mandates asylum seekers who arrive to be processed, as stated by NPR and Al Jazeera.