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 The policy ended in 2020 amid pandemic-related restrictions and was formally rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.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.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump, 78, who has long accused the Biden administration of weaponizing the DOJ to bring federal charges against him, asserted that these firings would help restore public confidence in the justice system.

“Over the past four years, the Department of Justice has been politicized like never before,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, I have instructed the termination of ALL remaining ‘Biden Era’ U.S. Attorneys. We must ‘clean house’ IMMEDIATELY, and restore confidence. America’s Golden Age must have a fair Justice System – THAT BEGINS TODAY!”

While it is customary for U.S. attorneys to resign after a new president takes office, current and former Justice Department lawyers pointed out that the typical practice involves the incoming administration requesting resignations rather than issuing abrupt termination letters, according to Reuters.

Additionally, the Justice Department had already removed several officials involved in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump. Smith, 55, had brought two criminal cases against the former president related to his alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and to retain classified documents after leaving office.

The case concerning classified documents was dismissed by a federal judge in Florida last July, and the election interference case was dismissed shortly thereafter by a Washington, D.C., federal judge. Trump’s legal team continues to maintain that these cases were part of a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Notably, just a month after Trump was sworn in as the 47th president, his administration removed dozens of federal prosecutors who had been directly involved in prosecuting over 1,500 individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. At least 15 career officials were reassigned to roles with less influence, including one who had pushed for the FBI raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Trump has been vocal in his criticism of Jack Smith’s legal actions against him, calling them emblematic of the Biden administration’s efforts to “weaponize” the Justice Department. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him by Smith, who resigned shortly before Trump’s second inauguration.

To replace the dismissed attorneys, Trump has already nominated several individuals for key DOJ positions. Among them is Judge Jason Reding, who was tapped as the new U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Nassau County Judge Joseph Nocella Jr. was chosen to lead the Eastern District of New York, while Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton was nominated as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. Additionally, Trump nominated Edward Martin, a key figure in dismissing pending cases involving January 6 rioters, to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the terminations, stating, “There are a number of bureaucrats who are resistant to the democratic process and mandate delivered by the American people.” She added, “President Trump is only interested in the best and most qualified people who are also willing to implement his America First Agenda on behalf of the American people. It’s not for everyone, and that’s okay.”

The sweeping dismissals are part of Trump’s broader strategy to reshape federal institutions to align with his political agenda, as the nation braces for a contentious presidential term ahead.