Introduction
This article was flagged for fact-checking because readers questioned whether the policies restricting asylum applications at the southern border are federal or state law, particularly given California’s stance on immigration. The article also references substantial developments in immigration policy that could impact how asylum seekers are processed at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Historical Context
U.S. immigration law has long established federal authority over border enforcement and the processing of asylum claims. Over recent years, surges in migration have prompted the implementation of temporary federal policies—such as “metering”—that limit access to asylum at the southern border. While California and other states have taken their own steps to shape local enforcement, eligibility for asylum and the procedures at the international boundary remain determined by federal law and are frequently litigated in federal courts. These ongoing legal challenges reflect a complex interplay between state initiatives and overarching federal authority.
Fact-Check of Specific Claims
Claim #1: “The Supreme Court agreed to hear a Trump administration appeal that argues migrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border, allowing border agents to block asylum seekers from stepping onto U.S. soil and turn away their claims without a hearing.”
This claim is accurate. The Supreme Court agreed to review an appeal regarding the federal government’s authority to restrict who can seek asylum at the southern border. The Trump administration argued that U.S. border agents could prevent migrants from physically entering the country and deny their asylum applications without hearings if they had not set foot on U.S. soil. This move seeks judicial clarification of federal law, specifically on whether this enforcement action is lawful. (Source)
Claim #2: “The 9th Circuit Court ruled that restrictions requiring migrants to wait on the Mexican side before applying for asylum were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.”
This claim is also accurate. In May 2025, the 9th Circuit Court determined that the so-called “metering” policy, which forced migrants to remain in Mexico before seeking asylum, violated federal law if it prevented those at the border from applying. The ruling stated that anyone who presents themselves at a land border port of entry should be considered to have “arrived” in the United States for the purposes of requesting asylum. (Source)
Claim #3: “The government is no longer using the ‘metering’ system that required migrants to wait for a hearing.”
This claim is accurate. The “metering” policy was discontinued: initially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and then formally ended by the Biden administration in 2021. Since June 2024, new restrictions have been implemented under other federal policies rather than “metering.” (Source)
Claim #4: “Is this a federal law or state law? The governor of California will never stop illegal immigration’s.”
The policy in question—limit or process asylum claims at the southern border—is purely under federal jurisdiction. Decisions about who may apply for asylum, and how federal agents process migrants at the border, stem from U.S. federal immigration law, not state law. However, California has enacted state laws affecting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities (such as the California Values Act, SB 54), but these do not directly determine asylum application rules at the boundary. Even if a state governor disagrees with federal action, they do not control federal immigration policy at the border. (Source, Source)
Conclusion
The article accurately outlines the major legal dispute over whether federal authorities can block migrants at the southern border from seeking asylum. All claims made, including the Supreme Court’s involvement, the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling, and the cessation of the “metering” system, are supported by reputable news sources and legal documents. The article properly portrays this as a matter of federal authority—states like California may influence enforcement within their jurisdiction, but they cannot override federal law on asylum at the international boundary. No misleading information, fabrication, or significant bias was found within the article’s key claims.
Take Action Now
Want verified facts at your fingertips? Download the DBUNK App to flag, review, and share real-time fact checks with your community.
Link to Original Article
Read the original article here
