Supreme Court Likely To Revive Obama-Era Rule on Asylum-Seekers

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently consented to reevaluate a longstanding immigration policy that denied asylum seekers entry at ports along the southern U.S. border. President Donald Trump requested the justices to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the policy unlawful.

The Biden administration terminated the practice referred to by the government as “metering.” The Trump administration seeks to maintain flexibility while intensifying its immigration enforcement efforts.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stated in November, “The Constitution assigns the authority to regulate the border to the political branches, rather than the judiciary.” Sauer stated that the decision below improperly undermines Congress’ authority to establish asylum policy, referencing its ties to active policies. It also ‘significantly encroaches upon the executive branch’s authority to regulate the nation’s borders.’The nonprofit immigrant rights organization, Al Otro Lado, in conjunction with 13 asylum-seekers who initiated the lawsuit central to the dispute in 2017, expressed their endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and are ready to uphold it before the Supreme Court.

“The government’s turnback policy constituted an unlawful strategy to evade these obligations by physically obstructing asylum-seekers at ports of entry and hindering their ability to cross the border for protection,” stated attorneys for Al Otro Lado and the asylum-seekers. “At-risk families, children, and adults escaping persecution were left in hazardous circumstances, where they encountered violent attacks, abduction, and mortality.”

Sauer stated, “According to the rationale of the decision below, [Customs and Border Patrol] was prohibited from obstructing the entry of an individual who arrived at the border without a prior appointment.” An alien could assert that he has arrived ‘in the United States,’ thereby necessitating government inspection and processing of his asylum application, which would enable him to circumvent the queue.

The asylum-seekers contested the government’s petition, asserting that the appellate court’s decision pertained solely to a specific group of migrants.

Kelsi Brown Corkran, an attorney with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, stated, “While the current administration’s border policies are subject to impending legal challenges, none of the plaintiffs’ assertions in those cases hinge on the issue raised by the petition here.” The court’s determination of the issue at hand would consequently constitute little more than an advisory opinion.

The Justice Department refrained from commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision to consider its appeal. The White House directed inquiries regarding the reinstatement of the metering policy to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not respond to questions concerning the potential revival of the policy by the Trump administration.

“Our attorneys have unequivocally articulated that the Trump administration has consistently upheld the explicit interpretation of federal law and fundamental logic in this matter from the outset,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated in an email that contained a link to the government’s petition. “We anticipate presenting our case to the Supreme Court.”

The Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that individuals in the United States, irrespective of their location, have the right to apply for asylum if they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.In 2016, in response to an influx of Haitian asylum-seekers at San Ysidro port of entry in Southern California, the Obama administration mandated that border agents refuse entry to newly arriving migrants.

Two years later, the Department of Homeland Security formally instituted the policy, supplying all southern border ports with “metering guidance.”

Under the 2018 policy, border agents were assigned the responsibility of identifying prospective asylum-seekers and actively obstructing their entry into U.S. territory.

In 2019, the Trump administration implemented a new barrier for migrants, declaring that individuals who traversed one or more countries prior to reaching the U.S. would be disqualified from asylum unless they had first pursued protection in at least one of those transit countries.

A lower court has certified a class for asylum seekers who arrived prior to Trump’s transit rule, issuing an injunction that reinstates claims previously denied under the 2019 policy.

The class facilitated the advancement of the case subsequent to the Biden administration’s abrogation of the metering policy in 2021. The transit rule was ultimately rescinded in 2023.

In 2022, the lower court issued a definitive ruling, imposing a permanent injunction that barred the government from enforcing the asylum prohibitions against that particular group. The court confirmed that individuals in this category possessed the right to seek asylum in accordance with prior policy directives.

The Ninth Circuit assessed the legality of the metering policy to ascertain whether the remedy should be maintained.

The panel adjudicated in favor of the asylum-seekers, rejecting the government’s assertions that migrants denied entry at ports were not unlawfully deprived of asylum under the metering policy due to their absence from the U.S.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, arguing that alternative solutions, like the Biden-era CBP One app designed for asylum appointment scheduling for migrants, could be at risk.

U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…

Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.

Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.

Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.

Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”

The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.

The Drought Reality in the American West

The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:

The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.

Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.

In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.

What Canada Actually Controls

Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.

The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:

The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty

British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.

What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.

Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line

Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.

Canada has historically resisted:

Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements

The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.

Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.

Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:

Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.

The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.

The Infrastructure Reality

Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:

Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals

No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.

Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.

The Philosophical Divide

At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:

Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?

In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.

That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.

What This Means Geopolitically

Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.

Still, the symbolism matters.

For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:

Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution

Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.

Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:

Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.

The Path Forward

Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:

Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination

Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.

For now, Carney’s message is clear:

Canada’s water is not for sale.

And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.

The Bigger Picture

This episode highlights a larger truth:

In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.

But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.

How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.